Case Title: Ingram v. Chambers

Citation: 

Docket Number: 438, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEROY INGRAM, JR, 1 
 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LAUREN CHAMBERS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 438, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN13-01822 
§  Pet. No. 13-07474 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 25, 2013 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 19, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of November 2013, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Leroy Ingram (Husband), filed this appeal from 
the Family Court’s default judgment dividing the parties’ assets and debts 
ancillary to their divorce.  We find no basis to overturn the Family Court’s 
judgment.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Husband file a petition for divorce on 
March 6, 2013.  Lauren Chambers (Wife) answered the petition and 
requested the Family Court to retain ancillary jurisdiction to resolve property 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. 
 
2
division issues.  Wife filled out the required Rule 16(c) financial report in 
May 2013.  After Husband failed to timely complete his Rule 16(c) financial 
report, the Family Court informed Husband that if he failed to file the report 
by August 16, 2013, Wife would be entitled to move for a default judgment 
in her favor.  Husband filed his financial report on July 29, 2013.   
(3) 
On July 31, 2013, the parties were informed that a telephone 
hearing on the ancillary matters would be held on August 14, 2013.  The 
parties were directed to provide the Family Court with a phone number 
where they could be reached.  Wife participated in the telephone conference.  
Husband did not.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Family Court entered 
a default judgment ordering the parties to divide their credit card debt 
equally between them and dividing the only marital asset, a 2003 Honda 
motorcycle, equally between them.  Husband did not move to reargue or 
reopen the default judgment but, instead, filed this appeal. 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Husband contends that there 
were other marital assets—appliances—that the parties had agreed to sell 
and use the proceeds to pay down the credit card debt, which Wife failed to 
do.  Husband also contends that the motorcycle was not marital property.  
He further contends that, because of the nature of his job, he is not permitted 
 
3
to have a cell phone at his work and thus he could not call in at the appointed 
time for the telephone hearing. 
(5) 
Husband, however, did not file a motion to reopen the Family 
Court’s judgment.2  Instead, he appealed directly to this Court.  Husband’s 
explanation for his failure to participate in the Family Court hearing and the 
allegations that he makes concerning the parties’ assets and debts are outside 
of the record on appeal and, therefore, cannot properly be considered this 
Court.3  Accordingly, we find no basis to overturn the Family Court’s 
judgment.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 See Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b) (2013). 
3 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 9; Delaware Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202, 
1207 (Del. 1997) (holding that materials not offered into evidence and considered by the 
trial court are not part of the record on appeal).