Allen v. Scott, 363, 2020

Parties married May 3, 2017 after an ~11-year relationship; separated Feb 2019 and divorced Sept 9, 2019 with ancillary matters reserved.
The couple bought a Colorado home (~$740–$750K); Allen paid a $150,719 down payment, both names were on title; home sold at a loss for $715,000 and produced $72,388.78 in proceeds.
In an Ancillary Pretrial Stipulation entered as a court order both parties stated Allen made the down payment with premarital funds, but they disputed whether that down payment was a "gift unto the marriage."
At the ancillary hearing Allen testified she used funds from a “personal checking account”; the Family Court treated that testimony as a material change and ruled the down payment funds were marital, awarding Scott half the sale proceeds.
The Family Court also divided remaining marital assets 60/40 in Scott’s favor after weighing 13 Del. C. § 1513 factors; Allen sought reconsideration and appealed.
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Family Court’s reclassification of the down payment (holding the stipulation controlled), remanded to consider whether the premarital down payment was a gift unto the marriage, and left the 60/40 allocation intact unless remand findings require adjustment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Allen)	Defendant's Argument (Scott)	Held
Whether the Family Court erred by classifying the Colorado down payment as marital despite the parties’ stipulation that it was premarital	The Stipulation (ordered by the court) expressly stated the down payment was premarital; that binding stipulation was not amended and relieved Allen of presenting proof at trial	Allen’s hearing testimony (“personal checking account”) created a material change permitting modification of the stipulation; alternatively, the down payment was a gift unto the marriage	Reversed: the stipulation controlled; no triable issue existed as to source once the order was entered. Remanded to determine whether the premarital down payment was a gift unto the marriage.
Whether the Family Court abused its discretion in awarding a 60/40 split of other marital assets in Scott’s favor	The erroneous marital classification of the Colorado proceeds tainted the overall division and would justify a more favorable split to Allen	The Family Court reasonably weighed statutory factors and its allocation was supportable	Affirmed in substance: no abuse of discretion found on the record, but court may revisit and adjust the allocation on remand if the gift inquiry changes the §1513 analysis.

Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175 (Del. 2008) (standard of review for Family Court property-division decisions).
Glanden v. Quirk, 128 A.3d 994 (Del. 2018) (Family Court’s property-division weighing of statutory factors will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion).
Gertrude L.Q. v. Stephen P.Q., 466 A.2d 1213 (Del. 1983) (definition and binding effect of stipulations in judicial proceedings).
Itron, Inc. v. Consert Inc., 109 A.3d 583 (Del. Ch. 2015) (stating that stipulations narrow issues and trial resources should focus on genuine disputes).
Martin v. Martin, 857 A.2d 1037 (Del. Fam. 2004) (a motion for reargument should not be used to rehash arguments; preservation doctrine requires issues be fairly presented but not necessarily re-asserted in every post-judgment motion).