Stevens v. Brown

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s denial of Owen Stevens’s motion to reargue or reopen ancillary divorce proceedings. The Court held that the motion for reargument was untimely, that the notice of appeal was too late to challenge the underlying property-division order, and that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the proceedings for excusable neglect.

Holdings

1. A motion for reargument under Family Court Civil Procedure Rule 59 must be filed within 15 days of the filing of the order sought to be reargued; Stevens's motion, filed more than 15 days after the February 17 order, was untimely.
2. An untimely motion for reargument does not toll the time to appeal the underlying Family Court order.
3. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stevens's motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate excusable neglect and had not satisfied the requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Court properly denied Stevens's motion for reargument as untimely.
2. Whether Stevens's untimely motion for reargument tolled the time to appeal the Family Court's underlying order dividing the marital estate.
3. Whether the Family Court abused its discretion by denying Stevens's motion to reopen the ancillary proceedings under Family Court Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(1).

Disposition

affirmed