303 A.3d 1230
Del.2023Background
- Parties married in 2013, separated March 2021; Wife filed for divorce April 2021.
- They negotiated a Separation Agreement resolving ancillary matters: sale/division of the marital home and a rental property, division of household furnishings, and mutual waivers of property and alimony claims.
- Wife texted the Agreement to Husband (Apr. 27, 2021); Husband signed and returned (Apr. 28); Wife never returned a fully executed copy.
- Wife repudiated the Agreement on June 16, 2021; parties sold the marital home but not the rental property and continued discovery and settlement discussions into late 2021.
- Husband moved to enforce the Agreement (filed Jan. 28, 2022); Family Court denied the motion (May 27, 2022) and issued a final ancillary order (Oct. 17, 2022); Husband appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s judgment but concluded the Family Court erred in applying the statute of frauds while correctly finding Husband acquiesced in Wife’s repudiation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the Separation Agreement | Husband: statute of frauds does not apply; agreement resolves ancillary matters and is enforceable | Wife/Family Court: statute of frauds applies because agreement concerns real property sale/division | Court: statute of frauds does not apply as the agreement did not create or transfer an interest in land |
| Whether Husband acquiesced in Wife's repudiation of the Agreement | Husband: did not acquiesce; sought enforcement | Wife/Family Court: Husband acquiesced by continuing litigation and indicating renegotiation | Court: affirmed Family Court — record supports finding Husband acquiesced (fact-specific inquiry) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Peterson, 41 A.3d 395 (Del. 2012) (standards for appellate review)
- Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175 (Del. 2008) (de novo review of legal questions)
- CASA v. Dep't of Servs. for Child., Youth & Their Fams., Div. of Fam. Servs., 834 A.2d 63 (Del. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Julin v. Julin, 787 A.2d 82 (Del. 2001) (acquiescence is fact-intensive)
- Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671 (Del. 1972) (appellate review of factual findings)
- Murphy & Landon, P.A. v. Pernic, 121 A.3d 1215 (Del. 2015) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
- In re Celera Corp. S'holder Litig., 59 A.3d 418 (Del. 2012) (acquiescence and fact-specific evaluation)