Case Title: Harold v. Harold

Citation: 

Docket Number: 285, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
GERRY S. HAROLD, III,                      
           
Respondent Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
MARY D. HAROLD, 
     
 
 
     
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 285, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Petition Nos. 02-01867;  
                         03-16186 
   File No. CN98-11535 
  
 
Submitted:  December 3, 2004 
Decided:  January 21, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R1 
 
 
This 21st day of January 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Respondent-appellant Gerry S. Harold, III (“Father”), filed an appeal 
from the Family Court’s June 29, 2004 order granting the motion of petitioner-
appellee Mary D. Harold (“Mother”) for an award of attorney’s fees.  We find no 
merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.   
 
(2) 
The parties are the parents of two minor children.  On January 18, 
2002, Mother filed a motion requesting the Family Court to grant her sole custody 
of the children and, on November 17, 2003, filed a petition for a rule to show cause 
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
 
-2-
based on Father’s failure to exercise his court-ordered visitation with the children.  
On March 9, 2004, following a hearing, the Family Court entered an order: a) 
finding Father in contempt of three previous Family Court visitation orders;2 b) 
suspending visitation; and, c) granting sole custody to Mother based upon Father’s 
continuing pattern of irresponsible and emotionally abusive behavior toward the 
children.3  On June 29, 2004, the Family Court awarded Mother $1,325.00 in 
attorney’s fees, to be paid directly to the law firm of Mother’s attorney at the rate 
of $100.00 per month.4   
 
(3) 
In arriving at the amount of the award, the Family Court addressed 
Mother’s counsel’s experience in Family Court, the time and labor required, the 
fee customarily charged for similar legal services, the results obtained and the 
relative financial resources of the parties.5  The Family Court noted that, even 
though Mother’s income exceeded Father’s, an award of attorney’s fees was 
justified because “. . . it was [Father’s] refusal to exercise the visitation awarded 
him and to comply with his responsibilities as the parties’ son’s joint custodian that 
caused Mother to incur the fees she did.”   
                                                 
2 The orders were dated September 13, 2002, April 23, 2003 and October 21, 2003. 
3 Father did not appear at the hearing despite proper notification.  Mother testified that Father 
told her he did not plan to attend the hearing. 
4 The Family Court disallowed $200.00, which represented Mother’s counsel’s travel time to and 
from the courthouse. 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 731 (1999); Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct R. 1.5. 
 
 
-3-
 
(4) 
In his appeal, Father claims that the Family Court abused its discretion 
by granting Mother’s motion for attorney’s fees because Mother has a higher 
income than he does.   
 
(5) 
The Family Court has broad discretion to award attorney’s fees.6  On 
appeal from an award of attorney’s fees by the Family Court, we apply the 
deferential standard of review and, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, must 
affirm the Family Court’s decision.7  In this case, we find no abuse of discretion on 
the part of the Family Court in awarding Mother her attorney’s fees incurred in 
connection with court proceedings necessitated by Father’s flagrant failure to 
comply with previous orders of the Family Court, despite the fact that Father’s 
income is less than Mother’s. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Smith v. Francisco, 737 A.2d 1000, 1009 (Del. 1999). 
7 Id.