95 A.3d 53
Del. Fm. Ct.2013Background
- Wife (Jane Danberger) sued Husband (Daryl Danberger) in divorce; ancillary proceedings remained to resolve property division including whether Wife’s advertising business (Danberger Associates, Inc.) is a premarital (non-marital) asset.
- A filing cabinet stored in the marital home allegedly contained premarital tax returns and business records relevant to tracing the corporation to Wife’s pre-marriage sole proprietorship.
- Wife left the marital home in Oct. 2011; Husband admitted in deposition (Mar. 26, 2013) he shredded/purged documents from the filing cabinet in Feb–Mar 2012 during the pendency of ancillary matters.
- Husband gave inconsistent reasons for destruction (storage need, identity-theft concerns) and did not notify Wife or counsel; Wife discovered the cabinet empty in Apr. 2013.
- Wife moved for sanctions seeking default or, alternatively, an adverse inference and attorneys’ fees; Court held hearings and found Husband destroyed potentially relevant evidence while under a duty to preserve and in violation of the automatic preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Husband have a duty to preserve the filing-cabinet documents and did he destroy relevant evidence? | Danberger: documents likely included premarital tax/business records material to tracing the corporation to premarital assets. | Danberger: he only destroyed joint bank statements and not premarital records; records were otherwise obtainable from accountant. | Yes. Husband breached preservation duty and destroyed relevant evidence during pending litigation and while injunction under 13 Del. C. §1509 was in effect. |
| Was default judgment (precluding Husband’s claim that corporation is marital) an appropriate sanction? | Danberger: default warranted because destruction prevented Wife from proving tracing; extreme sanction justified. | Danberger: destruction was not in bad faith; prejudice not severe because some tax returns obtained. | No. Default is too severe; record does not show bad faith or prejudice sufficient to justify default. |
| Is an adverse inference an appropriate sanction? | Danberger: adverse inference that destroyed records would have supported Wife’s tracing claim. | Danberger: destroyed materials not relevant; corporate tracing independent of those documents. | Yes. Court draws adverse inference that the destroyed documents would have supported Wife’s claim that the business traces to premarital assets; Husband may rebut at merits hearing. |
| Are monetary sanctions (attorneys’ fees/costs) appropriate? | Danberger: fees recoverable because Husband breached preservation duty; negligence suffices. | Danberger: (implicit) fees not justified if destruction was harmless/negligent only. | Yes. Court awards fees and costs for the sanctions motion; Wife to submit affidavit of fees and costs for response period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates, 981 A.2d 1175 (Del. Ch. 2009) (supports adverse-inference doctrine where party under duty destroys evidence intentionally or recklessly)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Midcap, 893 A.2d 542 (Del. 2006) (discusses sanctioning and remedies principles)
- Jardel v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518 (Del. 1987) (addresses evidentiary consequences of spoliation and drawing adverse inferences)