Title: Peyton v. Peyton

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THEODORE E. PEYTON,1 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 269, 2015 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Family Court  
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
DANIELLE E. PEYTON, 
 
§ 
File No. 
CS08-02378 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Pet. Nos. 
12-40750 & 40751  
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
 
  
14-30826 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  September 23, 2016 
Decided:  December 12, 2016 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.   
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of December 2016, having considered the supplemental briefs 
of the parties and the Family Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Following their divorce in 2008, the parties, Danielle E. Peyton 
(“Wife”) and Theodore E. Peyton (“Husband”), entered into a stipulation and 
agreement resolving ancillary issues pertaining to property division and alimony 
(“the Agreement”).  The Agreement, which was signed by the parties and their 
counsel, was entered as an order of the Family Court on August 25, 2011. 
                                          
 
1 By Order dated May 29, 2015, this Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 
7(d).  
2 
 
(2) 
In 2015, Wife filed a petition for rule to show cause and specific 
performance (“the Petition”) alleging that Husband had failed to comply with 
certain provisions in the Agreement and therefore was in contempt of the August 
25, 2011 order.  When Husband failed to file an answer to the Petition, the Family 
Court entered a default judgment against Husband and issued an order that found 
Husband in contempt of the August 25, 2011 order and granted relief to Wife.   
(3) 
Husband appealed the default judgment to this Court and moved for a 
“clarification” of the judgment in the Family Court.  The Family Court deemed 
Husband’s motion for clarification to be a motion for reargument and directed that 
Husband file an amended motion for reargument.  When Husband filed the 
amended motion for reargument, the Family Court stayed consideration of the 
motion pending this Court’s disposition of Husband’s appeal from the default 
judgment. 
(4) 
In January 2016, we remanded this case with jurisdiction retained and 
asked the Family Court to rule on Husband’s amended motion for reargument.  On 
remand, the Family Court granted the amended motion for reargument and set 
aside the default judgment.  Also, the court accepted Husband’s untimely answer 
to the underlying Petition and scheduled an evidentiary hearing, which was held on 
March 8, 2016.       
3 
 
(5) 
Following the evidentiary hearing, and in an order dated April 20, 
2016, the Family Court granted the Petition.  The court found by clear and 
convincing evidence that Husband had willfully violated the August 25, 2011 order 
and that there was no justifiable reason not to enforce the Agreement as written.  
Following the issuance of the April 20 order, the Family Court returned the case to 
this Court. 
(6) 
Upon return of the case from remand, the parties filed supplemental 
briefs addressing the April 20 order.  Having considered the parties’ briefs and the 
Family Court record, including the transcript of the March 8 evidentiary hearing, 
the Court has concluded that the Family Court’s April 20 order should be affirmed.  
Nothing in the record supports Husband’s contentions that the Family Court 
abused its discretion or otherwise erred when granting the Petition.  Rather, it is 
clear that the Family Court considered the evidence before it under the appropriate 
legal standards and applied an orderly and logical deductive process to arrive at 
findings and conclusions that are amply supported by the record.2        
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
  
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice 
                                          
 
2 Devon v. Mundy, 906 A.2d 750, 752-53 (Del. 2006).