Harold v. Harold

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Family Court decision concerning marital-property division, alimony, marital debts, and attorney's fees. The Court held that the Family Court incorrectly treated the parties as agreeing to an equal property division, improperly attributed income to Wife without adequate record support, used erroneous expense calculations, and overlooked Husband's pension and Wife's fee request. The Court upheld the treatment of certain credit-card debts as marital debts.

Holdings

1. The Family Court erred by finding that Wife agreed to an equal division of the marital property. The parties agreed on some assets but disputed the marital residence, Husband's pension, and credit-card debts, so the Family Court was required to conduct the statutory equitable-distribution analysis.
2. Although the Family Court may attribute income to an underemployed party, it erred by attributing $54,250 to Wife because that amount was not supported by evidence in the record.
3. The Family Court did not err in attributing $70,500 in annual income to Husband.
4. The Family Court erred in calculating Wife's expenses because the order contained undisputed mathematical and factual errors. It also erred in determining Husband's expenses because its finding that Husband had not remarried was contradicted by the record and it did not determine whether he was cohabiting with an employed spouse.
5. The Family Court was required to reconsider the property division because the record indicated that Husband's pension was a disputed marital-property issue and the order apparently overlooked it.
6. The Family Court did not err in classifying the challenged credit-card debts as marital debts.
7. The Family Court erred by failing to address Wife's request for court costs and attorney's fees, which had been raised at the hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Court improperly treated Wife as having agreed to an equal division of all marital property without conducting the required equitable-distribution analysis.
2. Whether the Family Court improperly attributed $54,250 in annual income to Wife based on evidence and data outside the record when determining alimony.
3. Whether the Family Court properly attributed $70,500 in annual income to Husband for alimony purposes.
4. Whether the Family Court erroneously calculated Wife's and Husband's estimated expenses.
5. Whether the Family Court failed to consider Husband's pension in dividing the marital property.
6. Whether the Family Court properly classified certain credit-card debts as marital debts.
7. Whether the Family Court erred by failing to address Wife's request for court costs and attorney's fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded