Title: Brennan v. Abrams

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KAREN BRENNAN,1 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KYLE ABRAMS, 
 
Petitioner Below,  
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§  No. 585, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§   File No. CN11-04077 
§   Petition No. 17-35862 
§                          
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  
 August 9, 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  August 16, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 
conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family 
Court’s order dated October 26, 2018, finding the appellant in contempt for 
destroying and removing certain personal property allocated to the appellee in the 
Family Court’s July 13, 2017 order.  The Family Court heard the testimony of the 
witnesses, including the parties, and reviewed the parties’ electronic 
communications regarding the property at issue.  On the basis of the evidence 
presented, the court reached factual conclusions about whether the appellee had 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
consented to the destruction or removal of the property and the parties’ intent 
concerning the use of certain furniture items for staging the parties’ home for sale.  
The fact that the appellant disagrees with the court’s factual determinations is not a 
basis for reversal.  Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are 
clearly erroneous.2  Moreover, when the determination of facts turns on a question 
of the credibility of the witnesses appearing before the trial court, we will not 
substitute our opinion for that of the trier of fact.3  We find no abuse of discretion in 
the trial court’s valuation of the property.4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The appellant’s motion for a stay pending appeal is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066 (Del. May 14, 2019). 
3 Id. 
4 See Barnard v. McKee, 2002 WL 31996342 (Del. Oct. 7, 2002) (holding, in contempt proceeding, 
that Family Court did not abuse its discretion when determining values for model boats awarded 
to former husband but in the possession of former wife, after former husband received “inferior 
substitutes” for the property).