Case Title: Harris v. Harris

Citation: 

Docket Number: 110, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MICHELE HARRIS,                      
           
Respondent Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
MICHAEL HARRIS,  
     
 
 
     
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 110, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Kent County  
   CPI No. 03-18651 
   File No. CK02-03040                   
 
Submitted: August 27, 2004 
   Decided: October 26, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 26th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Michele Harris (“Wife”), filed an appeal 
from the Family Court’s February 26, 2004 order granting the petition for specific 
performance of petitioner-appellee, Michael Harris (“Husband”), which found 
Wife in contempt of a previous stipulation and order and ordered her to pay 
alimony to Husband in the amount of $325.00 per month, plus arrears in the 
amount of $3,050.00.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
Husband and Wife were divorced in September 2002.  With the 
assistance of their respective counsel, they entered into a stipulation regarding the 
 
 
-2-
ancillary issues of property division and alimony.  On March 19, 2003, the 
stipulation was signed as an order of the Family Court.  The order provided that 
Wife would pay Husband alimony in the amount of $325.00 per month during a 
period of 45 months beginning on April 1, 2003.  The order further provided for 
modification only upon a “substantial change in [Husband’s] economic 
circumstances.”   
 
(3) 
On June 24, 2003, Husband filed a petition for a rule to show cause on 
the ground that Wife had failed to pay him alimony in accordance with the terms of 
the March 19, 2003 stipulation and order.  The Family Court held a hearing on the 
petition on February 26, 2004, with both parties present.  Husband testified that 
Wife had made one full and another partial alimony payment in 2003, but had 
made no payments thereafter.  Wife testified that she had entered into the 
stipulation voluntarily and was in arrears on the payments due to subsequent 
medical and financial circumstances.  While Wife testified that she currently was 
disabled, she did not explain why she did not pay alimony during the time she was 
not disabled and presented no evidence concerning either her disability or her 
income.  There was no evidence indicating that Husband’s economic 
circumstances had changed. 
 
 
-3-
 
(4) 
While Wife asserts in her opening brief that she has filed a petition in 
the Family Court requesting a modification of alimony, Husband responds that no 
such filing appears on the Family Court docket.  The record reflects that Wife 
attempted to file such a petition, but it was not docketed by the Family Court clerk 
because it was not in the proper form. 
 
(5) 
Alimony may be either judicially determined or agreed upon by the 
divorcing parties themselves in a stipulated alimony agreement or similar contract.1  
If the Family Court makes a judicial determination and enters an order for alimony, 
the conditions for modification of the order are mandated by statute.2  On the other 
hand, a stipulated alimony agreement does not become a court order within the 
meaning of Section 1519 upon signature by the Family Court.3    Rather, it remains 
a contract governed by contract principles.4  Moreover, the Family Court may not 
modify such an agreement unless the agreement itself grants the Family Court such 
power.5 
 
(6) 
The evidence presented at the hearing clearly reflected the following: 
Wife breached the terms of the stipulation and order by failing to make the 
                                                 
1 Gertrude L.Q. v. Stephen P.Q., 466 A.2d 1213, 1217 (Del. 1983). 
2 Del. Code Ann., tit. 13, § 1519(a) (4). 
3 The Family Court signs such a stipulation as an order in order to assert jurisdiction to construe 
the stipulation in the event of a future dispute.  Rockwell v. Rockwell, 681 A.2d 1017, 1020 (Del. 
1996). 
4 Id. at 1020-21. 
5 Rockwell v. Rockwell, 681 A.2d at 1020. 
 
 
-4-
required alimony payments to Husband; Wife failed to justify that failure by 
demonstrating a change in Husband’s economic circumstances, which was the only 
condition for modification permitted by the stipulation and order; and the 
stipulation and order itself conferred no power upon the Family Court to modify its 
terms.  As such, the Family Court neither erred as a matter of law nor abused its 
discretion when, after hearing the evidence, it granted Husband’s petition for 
specific performance.     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Justice