2011 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 43
Del. Fm. Ct.2011Background
- June 1, 2010 Family Court Property Division Order required Husband to pay Wife $43,578.25 within 150 days; Oak Lane Property excluded from Court’s jurisdiction.
- Disputes and motions followed: reargument/correction motions, and a motion to stay, stemming from the June 1, 2010 order.
- Husband paid $43,578.25 into his attorney’s escrow on October 27, 2010; amended amount later reduced to $38,251.15 by January 3, 2011 order.
- January 3, 2011 Order also directed payment of $10,860 for Wife’s attorney’s fees related to discovery issues.
- Wife petitioned for attorney’s fees for a Rule to Show Cause (Dec 6, 2010); Court amended the fee affidavit and related relief, ultimately awarding fees due to nonpayment by October 31, 2010.
- Court found Husband in contempt for failure to pay the original amount by the due date and awarded Wife $1,440 in attorney’s fees (4.8 hours at $300/hour).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of pending post-judgment motions on payment obligations | Wife | Husband | Motions did not automatically stay payment; no automatic suspension of judgment |
| Civil contempt for nonpayment under a property division order | Wife | Husband | Husband liable for contempt after failing to pay by October 31, 2010; clear and convincing evidence of violation |
| Reasonableness and amount of Wife’s attorney’s fees | Wife | Husband | Fees awarded at $1,680 total, reduced to $1,440 due to rate and hours; hourly rate set at $300 |
| Timeliness and proper execution of fee affidavits | Wife | Husband | Amended pleading allowed to correct affidavit; denial of broader relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Buchanan, 435 F. Supp. 832 (D. Pa. 1977) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence and proper mandates)
- Albro v. County of Onondaga, 681 F. Supp. 991 (N.D.N.Y. 1988) (contempt standards and remedial nature of civil contempt)
- Hearth Admins., Corp v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (public policy arguments rarely factor into preliminary injunction outcomes)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (irreparable harm is the most important factor for a preliminary injunction)