Jared E. Parks v. Belinda J. Carver

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from Family Court orders concerning ancillary property division and a motion to reopen a default judgment following the parties’ divorce. The Court rejected relief under Family Court Rule 60(b)(1) and (3), but held that extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6) justified limiting the former wife’s share of the marital-home sale proceeds to the 70% amount identified in the pretrial stipulation. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The appellant was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because he did not show that his failure to appear at the ancillary hearing resulted from excusable neglect.
2. The appellant was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) because he failed to show that any alleged misconduct by the appellee prevented him from fairly and adequately presenting his case.
3. Rule 60(b)(6) relief was warranted to the limited extent that the Family Court awarded the appellee more than 70% of the marital-home sale proceeds without adequate notice to the appellant that an award above 70% was at issue.
4. The ancillary judgment was reversed only to the extent it awarded the appellee more than 70% of the marital-home sale proceeds, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that limitation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Court abused its discretion by denying relief under Rule 60(b)(1) based on excusable neglect.
2. Whether the appellant was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) based on alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the appellee.
3. Whether extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6) justified reopening the default ancillary judgment because the appellant lacked notice that the appellee might receive more than 70% of the marital-home proceeds.
4. Whether the Rule 60(b) relief should be limited to capping the appellee's share of the sale proceeds at 70%.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded