Title: Barnard v. McKee

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOANN BARNARD, 
 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No. 642, 2001 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
Appellant/Cross-  
§ 
Appellee, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: Family Court 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
GEORGE B. McKEE, 
 
 
 
§ 
in and for New Castle County 
§ 
CPI No. 0120033 
Petitioner Below,  
§ 
Appellee/Cross- 
 
§ 
Appellant.  
 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 13, 2002 
Decided: October 7, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
This 7th day of October, 2002, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it 
appears to the Court that: 
1) JoAnn Barnard appeals, and her former husband, George B. McKee, cross-
appeals, from the Family Court’s November 26, 2001, Order governing the disposition 
of certain marital property.  In one of its earlier decisions, the court  awarded to  McKee 
certain model boats and other personal property in Barnard’s possession.  When McKee 
received inferior substitutes for the model boats and other property, he filed a petition 
to hold Barnard in contempt.  Following a hearing, the Family Court ordered Barnard 
 
 
2 
to pay McKee $8,000 in lieu of the missing property.  The court did not find Barnard in 
contempt for her most recent conduct, but awarded attorneys’ fees to McKee as part of 
its sanctions for Barnard’s “flagrant” contempt in refusing to comply with the court’s 
earlier property division order.  
2) Barnard contends that the Family Court abused its discretion in setting values 
for the missing personal property and the award of attorneys’ fees.  We find no merit to 
this contention.  The record supports the trial court’s findings as to both awards and we 
affirm on the basis of the trial court’s decisions of September 5, 2000, April 25, 2001, 
and November 26, 2001. 
3) McKee contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award 
him title to the parties’ Franklin Street property.  McKee requested that relief because 
he was awarded 60% of the proceeds from the sale of that property; he has not received 
any money because the property has not been sold; and Barnard now owes him more 
than her share of the value of that property.  The trial court declined to modify its 
earlier ruling, finding that a modification of that sort would require “far more 
accounting than we are able to do today.” 
4) We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling.  The parties have 
numerous financial obligations with respect to their marital properties and those 
 
 
3 
obligations would have to be carefully sorted out before the court could determine 
whether to award the Franklin Street property to McKee. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court 
be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice