Lankford v. Lankford, 157 A.3d 1235

Parties married 1993; Wife immigrated from Hong Kong, was largely a stay-at-home spouse with limited English and vocational skills; marriage lasted 22 years and produced three children (two minors at time of decree).
After separation (Jan 2015) Wife obtained three part‑time, low‑skill jobs, receives food stamps, lives in modest apartment; Husband previously earned higher wages, currently unemployed receiving unemployment benefits, and lives rent‑free in his mother’s house.
Family Court initially found Wife dependent and awarded lifetime alimony after finding her monthly expenses exceeded income.
On reargument the Family Court recalculated Wife’s income, found a $260 monthly surplus, and reversed dependency solely on that surplus; it also credited Husband for interim alimony overpayments against property division.
Wife appealed, arguing the court miscalculated income/expenses, ignored Husband’s earning potential and the marital standard of living, and improperly based dependency solely on one statutory factor.

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Whether Wife is a "dependent" under 13 Del. C. § 1512(b)	Wife: Court must consider all §1512(c) factors (standard of living, Husband's earning capacity); she remains dependent despite a small surplus	Husband: Wife’s recalculated income shows a surplus, so she is not dependent	Court: Reversed Family Court; dependency cannot be decided solely on income/expenses—must consider all relevant §1512(c) factors
Proper scope of Family Court analysis under §1512(c)	Court must analyze and balance all relevant factors, not just financial resources	Family Court relied primarily on financial-resource calculation	Held that Family Court abused discretion by giving undue weight to a single factor and must reconsider all factors on remand
Correctness of Wife’s income calculation	Wife: Family Court miscalculated and undervalued her needs and reliance on benefits; surplus may be illusory	Husband: Wife’s testimony supports higher imputed income, showing surplus	Court: Identified computational errors and instructed recalculation of Wife’s income and to account for hourly work variability on remand
Credit for interim alimony overpayments offset against property award	Wife: Credit calculation may be incorrect if dependency reconsidered	Husband: Should receive credit for overpayments	Court: Remanded; suggested recalculation of Wife’s dependency could affect the credit and property offset

Wright v. Wright, 49 A.3d 1147 (Del. 2012) (standard of review and Family Court discretion in alimony awards)
Olsen v. Olsen, 971 A.2d 170 (Del. 2009) (standards for appellate review of Family Court decisions)
Glanden v. Quirk, 128 A.3d 994 (Del. 2015) (requirement that Family Court consider statutory factors)
Thomas v. Thomas, 102 A.3d 1138 (Del. 2014) (burden and definition of dependency; need to measure against marital standard of living)
Adelaide A.G. v. Peter W.G., 458 A.2d 702 (Del. 1983) (dependency requires consideration of all §1512(c) factors)
Gregory J.M. v. Carolyn A.M., 442 A.2d 1373 (Del. 1982) (dependency defined as more than minimal subsistence)