IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARSHALL MARTIN,

1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

LONDON VALENTINE,

Respondent Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 35, 2023

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File No. CK21-02925

§ Petition No. 21-24708

§

§

Submitted: October 20, 2023

 Decided: December 20, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to 

the Court that: 

(1) The petitioner below-appellant, Marshall Martin, appeals the Family 

Court’s denial of his motion for property division. For the following reasons, we

affirm the Family Court’s judgment.

(2) On October 15, 2021, Martin filed a petition for divorce from the 

respondent below-appellee, London Valentine, in the Family Court. Martin checked 

boxes on the petition for the Family Court to decide alimony and court costs. He 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2

did not check the box for the Family Court to decide property division. On May 13, 

2022, the Family Court granted Martin’s divorce petition and retained jurisdiction 

over alimony (temporary and permanent) and court costs. 

(3) On June 13, 2022, Martin filed his ancillary financial disclosure report. 

On July 14, 2022, Valentine filed her ancillary financial disclosure report. 

(4) On September 27, 2022, Martin filed a motion for property division. In 

support of the motion, he stated that he was resubmitting the motion, as requested, 

with first names and an in forma pauperis affidavit included. He explained that he 

had accidentally omitted this information because he thought the court was already 

familiar with the parties’ names and his in forma pauperis status. 

(5) The Family Court held case management conferences on October 18, 

2022 and December 1, 2022. Transcripts of those conferences have not been 

prepared, but the parties agree that Martin’s motion for property division was 

discussed at the conferences. According to Valentine, the Family Court permitted 

her to file a late response to the motion because neither she nor her counsel had 

received the original filing. Valentine filed her response to the motion on December 

21, 2022. Construing Martin’s motion as a motion to reopen the divorce decree 

under Family Court Civil Rule 60(b) so that he could seek property division, 

Valentine argued that Martin failed to identify any basis for relief under Rule 60(b). 
3

(6) On December 29, 2022, the Family Court denied the motion for 

property division because Martin did not state what he was seeking or any basis for 

relief. This appeal followed.

(7) On appeal, Martin argues that Valentine and her counsel are responsible 

for any issues with the service of his papers, Valentine withheld bank statements 

necessary for resolution of property division and other ancillary matters, and the 

Family Court originally granted his motion for property division. He also makes 

arguments about other Family Court proceedings between the parties that are not 

part of this appeal. Valentine contends that the Family Court did not err in denying 

the motion because it was unclear what Martin was seeking and, to the extent Martin 

sought to reopen the divorce decree under Family Court Civil Rule 60, he failed to 

state a basis for such relief in his motion. 

(8) Under Rule 60(b), the Family Court may relieve a party from a final 

judgment for the following reasons: (i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (ii) newly discovered evidence, which by due diligence could not have been 

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (iii) fraud, 

misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (iv) the judgment is void; (v) satisfaction, 

release, or discharge of the judgment; or (vi) any other reason justifying relief. A 

petitioner must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” to obtain relief under 
4

Rule 60(b)(6).2 The decision to reopen a judgment under Rule 60(b) rests within the 

sound discretion of the trial court.3 

(9) Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal, we 

conclude that the Family Court did not err in denying Martin’s motion for property 

division. In his October 15, 2021 divorce petition, Martin asked the Family Court 

to decide alimony and court costs, but not property division. When the Family Court 

granted the divorce petition on May 13, 2022, the Family Court granted Martin’s 

divorce petition and retained jurisdiction over alimony and court costs, but not 

property division. 

(10) Martin did not file his motion for property division until more than four 

months after the Family Court granted his divorce petition and more than eleven 

months after he filed the divorce petition. The motion did not identify any property 

to be divided or provide any explanation for the delay in the request for property 

division. Even assuming the motion could fairly be construed as a motion to reopen 

under Rule 60(b), the motion did not state any basis for reopening the divorce

judgment under Rule 60(b). To the extent Martin now contends that he was unable 

to request property division without Valentine’s bank statements, he did not raise 

this argument below. Absent plain error, which we do not find here, we will not 

2

Jewell v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 401 A.2d 88, 90 (Del. 1979).

3 Reynolds v. Reynolds, 595 A.2d 385, 389 (Del. 1991).
5

consider this argument for the first time on appeal.

4

 Finally, the record does not 

support Martin’s claim that the Family Court originally granted and then denied his 

motion for property division. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

4

Supr. Ct. R. 8. Similarly, Martin must raise his claim that the bank statements show significantly 

higher figures than what Valentine disclosed in her ancillary financial disclosure report in the 

Family Court in the first instance.