Case Title: Jenkins v. Jenkins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 259, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RANDI JENKINS,1  
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
BRADLEY JENKINS,  
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 259, 2012 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in 
§  and for New Castle County 
§ 
§  File No. CN05-02658 
§  CPI No. 10-28585 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: September 21, 2012 
 
Decided: 
October 31, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 31st day of October 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the record below,2 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The respondent-appellant, Randi Jenkins (“Wife”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s May 8, 2012 order dismissing the request for 
an ancillary hearing on property division, permanent alimony, and costs filed 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated May 17, 2012.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 Because the appellee failed to file an answering brief, the Court notified the parties on 
August 22, 2012, that the appeal would be considered on the basis of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the record below. 
 
2
by the petitioner-appellee, Bradley Jenkins (“Husband”).  We find no merit 
to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) The record before us reflects that, following the Family Court’s 
grant of a continuance, the hearing on matters ancillary to the parties’ July 7, 
2011 divorce was re-scheduled for May 7, 2012.  The ancillary matters to be 
taken up by the Family Court included property division, permanent 
alimony, and court costs.  On the day of the re-scheduled hearing, Wife 
telephoned the Family Court and received permission to participate by 
telephone due to her illness.  At the time of the hearing, however, Wife did 
not answer her phone and did not return the Family Court’s phone call.  
Moreover, Husband failed to appear and did not contact the Family Court 
regarding his failure to appear.  On May 8, 2012, the Family Court 
dismissed the case.   
 
(3) In her appeal from the Family Court’s May 8, 2012 order, Wife 
claims that she was sick at the time of the hearing and did not hear the 
telephone when the Family Court called her. 
 
(4) A Family Court decision to dismiss a petition is reviewed by this 
Court for an abuse of discretion.3  This Court accepts the factual findings of 
                                                 
3 Beck v. Beck, 766 A.2d 482, 484 (Del. 2001). 
 
3
the Family Court unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they 
be overturned.4 
 
(5) We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court in 
ordering the dismissal of all matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce under 
the circumstances presented here.  The judgment of the Family Court will, 
therefore, be affirmed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice  
 
                                                 
4 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).