Title: Miller v. Miller

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LESLIE MILLER,1 
 
 
Respondent-Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
AARON MILLER, 
 
Petitioner-Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 471, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN10-03092 
§  Petition No. 14-03599 
§  
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 12, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 19, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of December 2014, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Leslie Miller (“the Wife”) filed this appeal from a Family Court 
decision, dated July 29, 2014, which granted Aaron Miller’s (“the 
Husband”) motion to reduce or terminate alimony.  We find no abuse of the 
Family Court’s discretion in this matter.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment on appeal. 
(2) 
The record reflects that the parties were married on September 
2, 1999 and divorced on July 15, 2010.  As a result of court proceedings 
                                                 
1 The Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2 
ancillary to their divorce, the Husband was ordered to pay alimony to the 
Wife of $3,327.75 per month.  The Husband’s alimony payments were 
scheduled to increase after twenty-four months to $3,432.75 per month (after 
the Wife paid off her child support arrears) and would terminate after a total 
of thirty-five months.   
(3) 
On February 19, 2014, the Husband filed a petition to reduce or 
terminate his alimony obligation.  The Husband asserted that there was new 
evidence that the Wife had monthly cash income from several business 
ventures totaling between $4,000 and $10,000 per month.  The Husband 
argued that this evidence was contrary to $15,000 annual income that the 
Family Court attributed to the Wife in its alimony award.  The Husband 
argued that the Wife deliberately had failed to disclose these additional 
sources of income to the Family Court during the ancillary hearing.  The 
Wife filed a response denying the Husband’s allegations. 
(4) 
The Family Court held a hearing on the Husband’s motion for 
modification of alimony on June 19, 2014.  Both parties appeared for the 
hearing with their counsel.  The Husband presented the testimony of the 
Wife’s alleged former lover, Mark.  Mark testified that he met the Wife after 
she had responded to his online personal advertisement seeking a romantic 
 
3 
relationship.2  Mark testified that he and the Wife were romantically 
involved for several months, that she had spent the night at his house on 
multiple occasions, that they had taken several trips together, and that he had 
given her about $5,000 worth of jewelry as gifts.  Mark testified that the 
Wife had told him about several business ventures that she was involved in, 
including an auto body shop and a catering business.  He testified that the 
Wife had told him that she was a partner in a business with her brother but 
acted as a silent partner so that the Husband would not know that she was 
involved in the business.  Mark further testified that he observed the Wife 
receiving checks and thick envelopes, presumably containing cash, from 
some of these ventures.  Mark acknowledged that he was upset with the 
Wife after their relationship ended and she refused to return the jewelry he 
had given to her.  He testified that he had contacted the Husband in an effort 
to exact some type of revenge against the Wife. 
(5) 
The Husband also presented the testimony of the Wife who 
testified that the only income she earns is $500 every two weeks working as 
a receptionist at a nail salon, in addition to the alimony and occasional loans 
                                                 
2 The Wife denied ever being in a romantic relationship with Mark.  She testified that she 
had responded to his online advertisement because she was seeking to hire a private 
investigator.  The Husband submitted a copy of the online advertisement, however, which 
reflected that Mark had been seeking a romantic relationship and did not mention his 
occupation as a private investigator. 
 
4 
she receives from family members.  She denied being involved in any other 
business ventures.  The Husband’s counsel questioned the Wife extensively 
about deposits she made into her bank account between January 2013 and 
March 2014.  The deposits totaled almost $68,000 (not including over 
$39,000 in deposits from the Husband’s alimony payments) and her 
withdrawals totaled almost $39,000. 
(6) 
After considering all of the evidence, the Family Court 
concluded that the Wife’s testimony was not credible and that her 
explanations for various deposits and withdrawals simply did not add up.  
Moreover, while acknowledging Mark’s bias against the Wife, the Family 
Court nonetheless concluded that his testimony about how he met the Wife 
was substantiated by the online advertisement and thus more credible than 
the Wife’s testimony on this point.  In fact, the Family Court concluded that 
the “Wife was dishonest in her testimony about how she met [Mark].”  The 
Family Court found this lack of truthfulness tainted her overall credibility. 
Ultimately, the Family Court concluded that the Wife was not dependent on 
the Husband for support and that the Husband’s petition to terminate 
alimony should be granted.  The Wife appeals. 
(7) 
In her opening brief on appeal, the Wife contends that the 
Family Court abused its discretion in determining that she was not 
 
5 
dependent by relying on the testimony of a biased witness.  The Wife also 
contends that the Family Court erred by ignoring her testimony 
substantiating that she is dependent on the Husband for support. 
(8) 
Under 13 Del. C. § 1519(a)(4), the Family Court may modify or 
terminate alimony “only upon a showing of real and substantial change in 
circumstances.”  On appeal from the Family Court’s decision regarding 
alimony, this Court reviews the law and the facts, as well as the inferences 
and deductions made by the trial judge.3  We review conclusions of law de 
novo.4 If the Family Court correctly applied the law, we review under an 
abuse of discretion standard.5  The Family Court’s factual findings will not 
be disturbed on appeal unless those findings are clearly wrong and justice 
requires their overturn.6  When the determination of facts turns on the 
credibility of the witnesses who testified under oath before the trial judge, 
this Court will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge.7 
(9) 
In this case, the Family Court considered all of the evidence 
presented by the parties and determined that Wife was not truthful in certain 
aspects of her testimony, which called her credibility into question with 
                                                 
3 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
4 Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 179 (Del. 2008). 
5 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186-87 (Del. 1991). 
6 Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d at 179. 
7 Wife (J.F.V) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d at 1204. 
 
6 
respect to all of her testimony.  The Family Court acknowledged that the 
Husband’s star witness, Mark, had a grudge against the Wife.  Nonetheless, 
the Family Court determined that Mark was more credible than the Wife.  
These credibility determinations were within the Family Court’s discretion.  
We conclude that the Family Court’s findings of fact are supported by the 
record and that the Family Court did not commit any error of law.  
Accordingly, the judgment below must be affirmed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice