Arroyo v. Arroyo, CS02-04531.
| Decision Date | 12 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. CS02-34353.,No. CS02-04531.,CS02-04531.,CS02-34353. |
| Citation | 981 A.2d 561 |
| Parties | In the Interest of Dean ARROYO v. Jeanna ARROYO.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Delaware Family Court |
Seth L. Thompson, Esquire of Hudson, Jones, Jaywork and Fisher, Georgetown, DE, for Petitioner.
Jeanna Arroyo, Respondent, pro se.
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT—ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Dean Arroyo (Husband) on September 26, 2008 and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeanna Arroyo (Wife) on September 30, 2008.
This case has a very long, intricate procedural background. The Court will address only those facts pertinent to its present decision.
Husband and Wife were divorced on July 23, 2003 after a 10 year 8 month marriage. There were three children born to the marriage: Adrian Arroyo (DOB 3/17/1994), Lark Arroyo (DOB 2/10/1997), and Andrew Arroyo (DOB 1/11/1999). After a hearing, the Court awarded joint custody to the parents and primary residential placement with Wife. The Court has since modified its Custody and Visitation Order, granting sole custody to Wife and visitation to Husband, if he returns to this country, to be held at the Georgetown Visitation Center.2
The Court issued an Order addressing matters ancillary to the parties' divorce. That Order was appealed to the Supreme Court of Delaware. The Supreme Court affirmed this Court's ruling, but remanded the case for the limited purpose of reconsidering Husband's monthly child support payments. The Supreme Court recently affirmed this Court's subsequent ruling on that matter. Currently, Husband is obligated to pay Wife $2,282.11 per month for alimony and $1,129.00 per month for child support.
On February 6, 2007, Wife requested an emergency ex parte order, alleging that Husband was planning to flee the country and had not complied with his obligations as to alimony and child support. The Court granted Wife's request for emergency relief and scheduled a hearing for February 16, 2007, for which Husband received notice according to the Court's records. Husband failed to appear at the hearing. A Commissioner of this Court issued an Order on February 16, 2007 directing Husband to forfeit his passport. Husband left the country, arriving in Israel on February 17, 2007,3 having failed to follow the Court's Order. The Court issued a capias for Husband's arrest.
Wife filed a Petition for Child Support Arrears on May 15, 2007. Despite having notice, Husband failed to appear for the hearing. Another capias was issued for his arrest on August 22, 2007.
On February, 20, 2007, Wife filed a Rule to Show Cause petition alleging that Husband was in contempt for failing to satisfy his alimony, interim alimony, interim child support, attorney's fees, and property division obligations. Again, Husband failed to appear for the hearing, despite having notice. The Court found sufficient evidence to hold Husband in contempt for outstanding interim alimony, permanent alimony, property division, and attorney's fees obligations in its August 13, 2007 Order.
Husband had previously filed a Motion for Termination or Reduction of Alimony on September 19, 2008. The Court dismissed that Motion because Husband had been found in contempt and had outstanding capiases.4 The Court held that Husband had "forfeited the right to pursue" his case because he had "not purged himself of those taints."5
In his present Motion, Husband requests that the Court reopen the February 16, 2007 Order and all subsequent Orders flowing from it, as well as withdraw the capiases against him. Husband further requests a permanent injunction preventing Wife from contacting government agencies or prospective employers. Finally, Husband requests an Order terminating his liabilities with respect to property division and alimony obligations. If the Court should deny such an Order, Husband requests that he be credited with a large amount of money he lost, which he argues is attributable to Wife's fraud, misconduct, and misrepresentations.
Husband argues that he moved to Israel for low-cost medical care and health insurance. He also states that he did not hide his intentions of moving to Israel. He states that he did not receive notice of the February 16, 2007 hearing, and argues that he should not be held to that Order or any other Order stemming from it. He states that he left for Israel the day before the hearing and arrived in Israel on February 17, 2007. He argues that he cannot follow the Court's Order to surrender his passport, as it is against Israeli law to remain in the country without a passport. He also states that he did not receive notice of the hearing regarding Wife's motions to modify custody and visitation, contempt, and rules to show cause.
He further asserts that Wife perpetrated fraud, misconduct, and misrepresentation, which caused him great hardship in complying with the Court's Orders. He states that Wife refused to lift two lis pendens that she placed on his home at in Millsboro.6 He argues that...
To continue reading
Request your trial