A A v. B A
| Decision Date | 09 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | File No.: CN16-05018,Petition No.: 16-26053 |
| Parties | Re: A A v. B A |
| Court | Delaware Family Court |
Curtis P. Bounds, Esquire
Bayard P.A.
600 North King Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Shawn Dougherty, Esquire
Weik, Nitsche & Dougherty
305 North Union Street, Second Floor
P.O. Box 2324
Wilmington, DE 19899
Dear Counsel:
Before the Court are the ancillary matters of property division, alimony, and attorneys' fees and costs between A A ("Wife"), represented by Curtis P. Bounds, Esquire, and B A ("Husband") represented by Shawn Dougherty, Esquire. A hearing on this matter took place December 9-11, 2019. The Court heard testimony from both parties. Additionally, the Court heard testimony from expert financial evaluators G C and W B , and testimony from J N , Sr. An additional day of testimony was held on July 17, 2020. The parties were married on September 8, 1979, and separated on July 29, 2016. The parties were divorced on February 9, 2017. The parties have three children together who have all reached the age of majority.
On August 25, 2016 Wife filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences and that there had been an irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Husband filed an answer and counter claim for divorce on October 18, 2016. Husband and Wife agreed to proceed to divorce without a hearing and were granted a divorce on February 9, 2017. At the time that divorce was granted, the Court issued a notice regarding the timelines for filing the Rule 16(c) Financial Disclosure Report for ancillary matters. After a long series of continuance stipulations, the Court received the 16c financial disclosure report on May 26, 2017.
At this time, extensive discovery was occurring and further stipulations for discovery extensions were being filed and granted by the Court. On August 7, 2018, Wife filed a Motion to Compel Husband to produce certain documents pertaining to his income and ownership of certain assets related to his business and investments. On August 27, 2018, Husband filed an answer to the Motion to Compel stating that Wife's former position of Husband's book keeper gave her direct access to the additional information she was seeking. Wife subsequently filed a Motion to extend the discovery deadline on September 6, 2018. Husband then filed an answer to the Motion to extend the discovery deadline and filed a Motion for a Protective Order on September 10, 2018. Husband claimed that the continued third-party discovery and depositions were duplicative and unnecessary. Husband also claimed that Wife's counsel was seeking irrelevant information during the depositions. On September 11, 2018, the Court denied the Motion for Protective Order for third party discovery. The Motion to Compel was granted as the Court believed that Wife was entitled to the information she was seeking. The Court cautioned Wife that discovery was not to become a fishing expedition.
Wife filed a Motion to sell the 99 Salthouse lane, Kiawah Island, South Carolina ("Kiawah Property") on September 7, 2018. On September 17, 2018, Husband filed an answer to Wife's motion to sell the Kiawah Property. Husband agreed the property should be sold but requested to sell the home himself in exchange for an additional 3% added to his 50% share. Husband argued that if they were to use a realtor, commission would be paid to the realtor between 7-10% of the sale price. On September 18, 2018, the Court granted Husbands request to sell the Kiawah Property. The Court declined to rule on the commission argument and reserved it as an ancillary matter to be determined at trial. On November 28, 2018, Wife filed another Motion for the sale of the Kiawah Property. Wife stated in this motion that Husband was non-responsive and he had not completed the preparation to sell the home and was ignoring Wife's inquiry regarding offers for purchase. Husband answered the motion on December 14, 2018, detailing his efforts to prepare the Kiawah Property for sale. The Court issued an Order which denied Wife's motion to compel the sale of the Kiawah Property on December 18, 2018.
On April 24, 2019, Wife filed a Motion for Interim Alimony. In Wife's motion, she sought interim alimony in the amount of $17,210 to meet her monthly expenses. On May 6, 2019, Husband filed an answer to the Motion for Interim Alimony. Husband sought denial of interim alimony and stated that Wife voluntarily elected not to work throughout the duration of their marriage. On May 10, 2019, the Court issued an Interim Alimony order in the amount of $10,3121 per month for Wife which was to begin on May 15, 2019.
Wife continued to file Motions to compel the production of Husband's documents regarding Newtech Limited Partnership. Motions regarding these documents were filed on October 25, 2019 and then again after denial by the Court, for re-argument, on November 25, 2019. Husband filed an answer to both Motions denying that documents were still outstanding regarding Newtech Limited. The parties submitted updated Wright Charts on December 6, 2019 and a three-day trial was held on December 9-11, 2019. The Court on its own motion scheduled a teleconference regarding the admission of evidence with respect to the expenses paid by Husband on the Kiawah Property.Husband had initially sought to introduce these expenses during his testimony. The Court commented that given the extremely large income disparity between the parties and given that Wife needed interim alimony to meet her expenses during separation that only Husband would have the ability to pay and credits were therefore unlikely. Husband's counsel did not pursue the entry of this evidence based upon the Court's comments. However, later in Husband's testimony, his description of the timeframe involved in the earning of his commissions created an issue regarding the marital nature of Husband's commissions from his business post-separation, which in turn made the expenses on the Kiawah Property relevant. Essentially, if Wife is awarded a portion of Husband's post-separation earnings in the disposition of the business, then Husband may be entitled to credits for the expenses as it would not be fair to give Wife a share of the income stream but have Husband paying for all the expenses.
Following the December hearing, the parties submitted written closing arguments. The Court scheduled a teleconference to discuss the issue mentioned above regarding the Kiawah Expenses. The Court provided the parties an opportunity to Stipulate to the amount of the expenses paid by Husband during separation for the Kiawah Property. The parties were unable to reach agreement on the amount and the Court scheduled an additional hearing date to address the Kiawah expenses and additional issues raised by Wife as a result, including whether Husband owed Wife for the fair rental value of the Kiawah Property. At that hearing on July 17, 2020, the Court heard testimony from Husband, Wife and Mr. C .
The following matters are in agreement, either due to stipulations on the record or lack of disputes during the hearing or in closing summaries with Wright Charts.
To continue reading
Request your trial