Case Title: Shimel v. Shimel

Citation: 

Docket Number: 432, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MAX SHIMEL,1 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DANIELLE SHIMEL, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 432, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CK10-01391 
§  Petition No. 17-23373 
§   
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  
 March 15, 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  May 14, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the 
Court that:   
(1) 
The respondent below-appellant, Max Shimel (“the Husband”), filed 
this appeal from a Family Court order, dated June 27, 2018, granting the petitioner 
below-appellee’s, Danielle Shimel’s (“the Wife”) petition for a rule to show cause 
and holding the Husband in contempt.  We find no error or abuse of discretion in the 
Family Court’s decision.  Accordingly, we affirm the Family Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).  
2 
 
(2) 
The parties were married on September 9, 1989 and divorced by final 
decree on January 7, 2015.  On March 11, 2010, the Wife filed a petition for spousal 
support.  After the Husband failed to appear for a mediation scheduled for May 25, 
2010, a Family Court Commissioner entered a default order for spousal support 
requiring the Husband to pay $250.00 per week.  The Husband did not seek review 
of the Commissioner’s order.   
(3) 
On April 9, 2012, the Wife filed a petition for a rule to show cause, 
alleging that the Husband had failed to pay the spousal support.  A hearing was held 
on July 27, 2012.  On August 7, 2012, the Commissioner found the Husband in 
contempt for failing to comply with the spousal support order.  The Commissioner 
ordered the Husband to pay $10,833.33 for the spousal support owed between 
October 2011 and August 2012.  The Husband did not seek review of the 
Commissioner’s order.       
(4) 
On August 1, 2014, the Wife filed another petition for a rule to show 
cause alleging that the Husband had not paid any support.  After the parties’ divorce 
became final on January 7, 2015, the Family Court retained ancillary jurisdiction 
over property division and permanent alimony.  In the Rule 52(D) Ancillary Pretrial 
Stipulation completed by the Wife but not the Husband, the Wife indicated she was 
not seeking alimony, but did seek $35,000.00 in spousal support arrears.  The Wife 
also sought certain items of marital property.  After the Husband failed to appear for 
3 
 
the October 2, 2015 hearing, the Family Court entered a default order finding the 
Husband owed $35,000.00 in spousal support arrears, but erroneously ordering the 
Wife to pay the arrears in sixty days or a judgment in that amount would be entered 
against the Wife, and ordering that the Wife should receive the attached list of 
personal items in two weeks.  The Husband did not appeal the Family Court order. 
(5) 
On July 20, 2016, the Wife filed a motion for clarification of the order.  
She sought to correct the order to provide that the Husband was required to pay the 
Wife $35,000.00 in spousal support arrears and that a judgment would be entered 
against him if he failed to do so.  The Husband filed a response stating that he did 
not oppose the correction of the language, but that all monies due to the Wife had 
already been released and satisfied in a $61,866.90 payment to the Wife on 
December 4, 2014 and a $10,000.00 payment to the Wife on October 18, 2014.2  On 
August 2, 2016, the Family Court granted the Wife’s motion to clarify.  The order 
reflected that the Family Court had considered the Husband’s response.  The 
Husband did not appeal the Family Court order. 
(6) 
On August 2, 2017, the Wife filed a petition for a rule to show cause 
alleging that the Husband had failed to comply with the August 2016 order.  A 
                                                 
2 In making this argument, the Husband ignored a Family Court order, dated December 9, 2014, 
granting the Wife’s motion for reargument of the Family Court’s ruling that the $61,866.90 
payment mooted the Wife’s petition for a rule to show cause on the spousal support arrears and 
ordering that the rule to show cause petition would proceed. 
4 
 
hearing on the petition was scheduled for July 27, 2018.  At the hearing, the Family 
Court heard arguments from the Husband and the Wife.  In a bench ruling and 
written order, the Family Court granted the Wife’s petition, found the Husband in 
contempt, and ordered issuance of a wage attachment.  This appeal followed. 
(7) 
This Court’s review of a Family Court decision includes a review of 
both the law and the facts.3  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.4  Factual 
findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous and justice 
required they be overturned on appeal.5  When the determination of facts turns on a 
question of the credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of 
witnesses appearing before the trier of fact, we will not substitute our opinion for 
that of the trier of fact.6   
(8) 
The Husband’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: 
(i) he was not permitted to submit evidence and the Wife submitted no evidence 
except hearsay at the July 27, 2018 hearing; (ii) the Wife misstated her income and 
his income in 2010 and lived with another man at the time of the spousal support; 
(iii) the Wife listed her work address in Family Court paperwork instead of her 
                                                 
3 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
4 Id.  
5 Id.  
6 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V, Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
5 
 
residential address as required; and (iv) the Husband’s mental and physical health 
was not taken into account during the time he did not appear for hearings. 
(9) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal and the 
Family Court record, we conclude that the Family Court did not err in granting the 
Wife’s petition for a rule to show cause.  The evidence offered by the Husband at 
the July 27, 2018 hearing related to whether the Wife was entitled to spousal support 
and whether payments he made to her in 2014 encompassed the spousal support 
arrears.  As the Family Court recognized, the doctrine of res judicata barred the 
Husband from relitigating those issues at the July 27, 2018 contempt hearing.   
(10) The Husband could have opposed the Wife’s petition for spousal 
support in 2010 or sought review of the Commissioner’s 2010 order, but he did not 
do so.  Nor did he seek review of the August 2012 contempt order.  The Husband 
failed to appear for the October 2, 2015 hearing and failed to appeal the October 2, 
2015 order.  He raised the payment issue in response to the July 20, 2016 motion to 
clarify, but did not appeal the August 2, 2016 order awarding the Wife $35,000.00 
in spousal support.  He could not wait until the 2018 contempt proceedings to argue 
that the Wife should not have received spousal support or that payments he made in 
2014 encompassed the spousal support arrears.7  As to the Wife’s use of her work 
                                                 
7 See, e.g., O’Grady v. O’Grady, 1990 WL 72537, at *1 (Del. May 10, 1990) (holding that the 
doctrine of res judicata barred the husband from relitigating two previous rule to show cause 
matters where he failed to appear). 
6 
 
address in Family Court paperwork and the Husband’s physical and mental health at 
the time of the hearings for which he failed to appear, the Husband did not raise 
these claims in the proceedings below.   We will not consider them for the first time 
on appeal.8  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
8 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.