Case Title: Newman v. Newman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 29, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PAUL C. NEWMAN, 
 
 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 29, 2006 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   Court Below – Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  File No. CN03-07259 
E. LORRAINE NEWMAN, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  June 14, 2006 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  June 23, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 23rd day of June 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Paul C. Newman (the “Husband”), 
appeals from the judgments of the Family Court that divided the parties’ 
marital assets and awarded alimony to the respondent-appellee, E. Lorraine 
Newman (the “Wife”).  The Husband contends that the Family Court abused 
its discretion in three separate rulings:  first, by including the Wife’s house 
utilities but not the Husband’s utilities when calculating alimony; second, by 
providing the Wife alimony to buy the Husband’s share of the martial home; 
and third, in awarding the Wife sixty percent of marital assets.  
 
2
2) 
The Husband and the Wife were divorced after twenty-eight 
years of marriage.  The Wife filed a motion for Interim Relief seeking 
alimony from the Husband.  On December 2, 2005, the Family Court 
awarded temporary alimony to the Wife in the amount of $129 per month.  
In reaching that decision, the Court attributed the Wife with $31,097 annual 
income and the Husband with $64,592 annual income.  Total living expenses 
for the Wife and the Husband were determined to be $2,152 and $3,308, 
respectively.  At the time, the Wife remained in the marital home.  The 
Husband resided with his girlfriend, paying her $500 in rent while also 
continuing to pay the $1,136 mortgage on the former marital home.   
3) 
On December 27, 2005, the Family Court held a final hearing 
on the division of marital property and alimony.  The Family Court found 
the Husband’s final income to be $66,498 and the Wife’s final income to be 
$33,775.  The Family Court amended the living expenses for the Wife, 
adjusting her mortgage to $1,000, and among other items, adding $125 per 
month for tuition, for a total of $3,532 per month.  The Husband’s monthly 
living expenses were also amended to include $1,000 for future mortgage 
expense (reducing the amount for current mortgage by $136), eliminating 
the $500 rent, and several other items, for a total of $2,927 per month. The 
 
3
final financial plan included a $283 shortfall for the Wife and no shortfall for 
the Husband. 
4) 
The Family Court ordered the Husband to pay $432 per month 
to GMAC for the Wife’s car loan as alimony and to pay an additional $1,013 
as alimony paid directly to the Wife to be reduced to $900 on June 1, 2008.  
The Wife was awarded sixty percent of the marital estate and was made 
responsible for forty percent of the marital debt. 
5) 
The Husband’s first argument on appeal is that the Family 
Court abused its discretion by allowing the Wife expenses to pay home 
utilities, but not the Husbands, in its calculations.  At the final hearing on 
December 27, 2005, the Family Court amended the parties’ living expenses 
originally calculated at the interim hearing on December 2, 2005, as 
indicated above.  The Family Court equalized the expense for future 
mortgage payments for each party but allowed the Wife $412 for monthly 
utility expenses and allowed nothing for the husband, i.e., the Family Court 
did not include $412 for his utility expenses.   
6) 
The Husband asserts that at the time of the hearing on 
December 2, 2005, he had no utility and household expenses, but that at the 
final hearing on December 27, 2005, he told the Family Court of his intent to 
 
4
purchase a home where he would live alone and that he had been pre-
approved for a $250,000 mortgage.  The Husband contends that this error 
results in a $412 deficit for him compared to a $283 deficit for the Wife. 
7) 
While the Family Court did not estimate the Husband’s future 
monthly utility and household expenses, this omission does not amount to an 
abuse of discretion. Although the Family Court has allowed the same 
expense for both the Husband and the Wife in another case, it is not an abuse 
of discretion for the Court to not do so in every case.1  At the time of the 
final hearing, the Husband continued to live with his girlfriend and was 
paying $500 in rent and had no utility expenses.  When and if the Husband 
purchases and moves into his own home, he may petition the Family Court 
to adjust the alimony award pursuant to title 13, section 1519(a)(4) of the 
Delaware Code.2  
8) 
The Husband’s second claim is that the Family Court abused its 
discretion because part of the Wife’s $1,013 alimony funds her buyout of the 
Husband’s share of the marital residence.  The Husband claims that the 
Family Court abused its discretion because it overstated the Wife’s monthly 
                                          
 
1 BJ.S v. CH.S, 2005 WL3593359 at *12 (Del. Fam. Ct.) (the Court allocated the same 
utility expense to the husband and the wife under similar circumstances).  
2 (a) A decree or separate order entered under § 1518 of this title may be modified or 
terminated only as follows: (4) Alimony or any other relief awarded, only upon a 
showing of real and substantial change of circumstances. 
 
5
expenses by $249.  He contends that the $36,539 of the $159,000 mortgage 
owed to him equals 22.98 percent.  Therefore, his 22.98 percent of the 
$1,085 mortgage payment equals $249, the amount of the overstatement in 
the Wife’s monthly expenses that was considered in the alimony award to 
Wife.  The Husband contends that the Family Court’s decision causes him to 
fund the Wife’s buyout of his interest in the marital residence.   
9) 
In Borowenski v. Borowenski, the wife testified that the 
refinance of the marital residence to buy out her husband’s interest would 
increase her mortgage payment by $200 to $300.3  In that case, the Family 
Court concluded that it would not consider this increase in determining 
alimony, as “it would not be fair to Husband . . . to make him pay extra 
alimony so that she can buy out his interest.”4  In this case, the Family Court 
specifically addressed this issue when it computed alimony.   
10) 
The Family Court explained its reasoning and stated that it 
awarded a lower amount of alimony ($1,445 per month instead of $1,854), 
thus requiring the Wife to absorb her $283 shortfall.  Further, the Family 
Court explained it considered the $36,539 the Wife is refinancing to buy out 
the Husband’s interest.  The Husband contends that this is not equitable 
considering that he actually has a $412 shortfall based on the omission of 
                                          
 
3 1997 WL 878423, at *5(Del. Fam. Ct.). 
4 Id. 
 
6
utility expenses.  However, as discussed above, at the time of the decision, 
the Husband was paying $500 rent to his live-in girlfriend (not the $1,000 he 
was allocated) and had no expenses for utilities.  The record supports the 
decision of the Family Court, including consideration of the statutory factors 
and the process it undertook to reach its decision.   
11) 
The Husband’s third and final claim is that the Family Court 
abused its discretion in awarding the Wife sixty percent of the marital assets, 
considering their respective incomes after the alimony award.  The Family 
Court has broad discretion when dividing marital property.5  The Husband 
contends that an equal division of the marital estate would have been the 
fairest result had the Family Court considered alimony, as well as his first 
and second claims (i.e., the understatement of his monthly expenses and 
overstatement of the Wife’s monthly expenses).   
12) 
The Husband cites Hanley v. Hanley to support his argument.6  
In Hanley, the court divided the marital estate equally, but the court 
considered other factors in addition to economic circumstances when 
reaching its decision.  Hanley is further distinguished because the marital 
estate was sold to give effect to the 50/50 division.7 
                                          
 
5 Linder v. Linder, 496 A.2d 1028, 1030 (Del. 1985). 
6 1993 WL 777367, at *3-4 (Del. Fam. Ct.). 
7 Id. 
 
7
13) 
In this case, the Family Court considered all of the statutory 
factors stated in title 13, section 1513(a) of the Delaware Code when it 
determined the fairest division of the marital estate.  The Family Court 
considered the Husband’s greater earning capacity, the contribution of each 
party to the marriage, the debts of each party, and the fact that the Family 
Court valued the house at the higher figure of $193,000, thereby increasing 
the Husband’s interest.8  The Family Court decision is not arbitrary or 
capricious.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments 
of the Family Court are affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
8 Id.