Title: Scott v. Scott
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 309, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 2010

IN THE SUPREME CCOURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
AMANDA SCOTT,1 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 309, 2010 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Family Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
ANDREW SCOTT, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
File No. 08-05400 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
Pet. No. 09-04846 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 17, 2010 
Decided: 
December 17, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 17th day of December 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The parties divorced in 2009 after a marriage of twenty-seven 
months.  The Family Court retained jurisdiction to decide ancillary matters.  
The respondent-appellant, Amanda Scott (“Wife”), filed this appeal from the 
Family Court’s orders that divided the parties’ marital estate,2 denied her 
                                          
 
1 By Order dated May 27, 2010, the Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties.  
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).  
2 The record reflects that the parties appeared for a hearing on March 10, 2010.  The 
Family Court’s order dividing the parties’ marital estate issued on March 15, 2010. 
2 
 
“motion for rediscovery,”3 and denied her motion for reargument.4  The 
petitioner-appellee, Andrew Scott (“Husband”), has moved to affirm the 
judgment of the Family Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.5  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The Family Court has broad discretion to divide marital 
property under title 13, section 1513 of the Delaware Code.6  On appeal 
from an order dividing a marital estate, this Court reviews the facts and the 
law as well as the inferences and deductions made by the Family Court.7  
The Court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong and 
justice requires that they be overturned.8  Conclusions of law are reviewed 
de novo.9  If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, our standard of 
review is abuse of discretion.10   
(3) 
In this case, the Family Court awarded Wife 50% of the marital 
assets and 40% of the marital debt that was not otherwise waived by 
                                          
 
3 Wife filed her “motion for rediscovery” on March 25, 2010.  Husband responded orally 
to the motion at a custody hearing on April 7, 2010.  The Family Court’s order denying 
the “motion for rediscovery” issued on April 16, 2010. 
4 By order dated May 12, 2010, the Family Court denied Wife’s motion for reargument 
filed on April 27, 2010. 
5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1513 (2009).  Newman v. Newman, 2006 WL 1725581 (Del. 
Supr.) (citing Linder v. Linder, 496 A.2d 1028, 1030 (Del. 1985)). 
7 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
8 Id. 
9 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006) (citing In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 
(Del. 1995)).  
10 Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 179 (Del. 2008) (citing W. v. W., 339 A.2d 726, 
727 (Del. 1975)). 
3 
 
Husband.  Additionally, the Family Court offset Wife’s portion of the 
marital debt by $820, an amount owed by Husband on Wife’s behalf for 
attorney’s fees.  The Family Court denied Wife’s “motion for rediscovery” 
after concluding that Wife’s alleged newly-discovered evidence was 
available to her well in advance of the March 2010 hearing on ancillary 
matters.  The Family Court denied Wife’s motion for reargument after 
concluding that the motion was “based on restatements of previously made 
arguments and discoverable evidence that should have been presented at 
trial.” 
(4) 
In her opening brief, Wife takes issue with the orders on appeal.  
She fails, however, to identify any factual findings or inferences made by the 
Family Court that are “clearly wrong,” unsupported by the record or 
illogical.11  In essence, Wife asks this Court to substitute its own opinion for 
the factual findings and deductions made by the Family Court, which would 
be an improper exercise of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.  Having 
reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal and the Family Court record, we 
conclude that there is no basis for disturbing the factual findings of the 
Family Court and no errors of law.  
                                          
 
11 The Court notes that Wife elected to proceed without the transcript that she ordered for 
the appeal.   
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice