Orbitz v. Abbott
130, 2016
| Del. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Patricia Orbitz (Wife) appealed the Family Court’s February 17, 2016 ancillary order following a 10-year marriage; Wife proceeds pro se on appeal.
- The Family Court divided marital property (65% to Wife; 35% to Husband) and denied Wife’s request for alimony.
- Principal marital assets were two rental properties (101 Cole Blvd and 3 Vane Ct) and a residence (13 Dublin Dr) that Wife owned pre-marriage; parties stipulated Husband had an interest in Dublin Drive’s appreciation during the marriage.
- At the evidentiary hearing both parties were represented; Wife’s counsel later withdrew. The Family Court retained jurisdiction to divide the marital estate and rule on alimony.
- Wife raised multiple challenges on appeal: treatment of a Chase Bank loan and Dublin Drive utility bills as marital debt; alleged ownership interests of Wife’s adult children in properties; inclusion of a $36,000 equity line; alleged incorrect mortgage balance for Vane Court; and alleged failure to consider Wife’s contributions to Husband’s education in alimony analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chase Bank loan and Dublin Drive utility bills should be marital debt divided between parties | Orbitz argued the Chase loan and unpaid utility bills for Dublin Drive were marital debt and she should receive credit for payments she made | Abbott disputed that the Chase loan was marital debt and contended Husband had paid utilities | Court found the record showed the Family Court considered the requests and properly excluded the Chase loan and utility bills because Wife failed to substantiate marital liability or show Husband hadn’t paid utilities |
| Whether Wife’s adult children’s alleged ownership interests in Dublin Drive and Cole Blvd altered property allocation | Orbitz contended her adult children had ownership interests that the court failed to consider | Abbott maintained the Family Court properly allocated net values using the evidence presented | Court held Wife testified to children’s interests but did not show the Family Court failed to consider that testimony; allocation affirmed |
| Whether a $36,000 equity line on Dublin Drive was omitted from net marital value | Orbitz argued the equity line was not included in the court’s calculation | Abbott relied on the court’s stated calculations | Court confirmed the $36,000 equity line was included in the net-value calculation |
| Whether the court used an incorrect mortgage balance for Vane Court | Orbitz argued the court relied on an incorrect mortgage balance when valuing Vane Court | Abbott noted the court used mortgage figures provided by the parties | Court held the claim lacked merit; court used the parties’ mortgage balance |
| Whether the Family Court failed to consider Wife’s financial contribution to Husband’s education when denying alimony | Orbitz argued she supported Husband through graduate education and that increased his earning capacity, warranting alimony | Abbott opposed alimony and the Family Court considered statutorily required factors | Court found the Family Court considered the evidence and statutory factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying alimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Olsen, 971 A.2d 170 (Del. 2009) (Family Court has broad discretion in dividing marital estate)
- Walters S.J. v. M. Lorraine J., 457 A.2d 319 (Del. 1983) (standard for alimony decisions)
- Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175 (Del. 2008) (appellate review and equitable division under Section 1513)
- Wright v. Wright, 49 A.3d 1147 (Del. 2012) (application of alimony statutory factors)
- Eberly v. Eberly, 489 A.2d 433 (Del. 1985) (family court must consider relevant statutory factors)