Title: McMillion v. McMillon
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 285, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
BEATRICE McMILLION,                       
           
Respondent Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
AUSTIN B. McMILLION, 
     
 
 
     
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 285, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   File No. CN02-09548
 
Submitted: April 23, 2004 
   Decided: June 29, 2004     
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Beatrice McMillion (“Wife”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s May 5, 2003 order granting a default judgment in 
favor of the petitioner-appellee, Austin B. McMillion (“Husband”), in the ancillary 
matters of property division and alimony.  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
Husband’s petition for divorce was filed in September 2002.  In 
response to a subsequent petition for interim relief filed by Wife, Husband asked 
the Family Court to require Wife to make past due mortgage payments on the 
 
 
-2-
marital home, of which she had exclusive possession.  On December 10, 2002, the 
Family Court issued an order requiring Wife to make the past due mortgage 
payments no later than December 30, 2002.  On January 13, 2002, the Family 
Court denied Wife’s motion for reargument of the Family Court’s December 10, 
2002 order and ordered Wife to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $100.   
 
(3) 
On January 16, 2003, Husband filed a motion for interim relief on the 
ground that Wife had failed to make the mortgage payments, that the mortgage on 
the marital home was now over $5,000 in default, and requesting exclusive 
possession of the marital home and a default judgment should Wife not fully 
comply with the Family Court’s December 10, 2002 order.  On March 5, 2003, the 
Family Court issued the final divorce decree and, on the same date, issued an order 
finding Wife in contempt for failing to make any mortgage payments and requiring 
her to vacate the marital home no later than noon on March 22, 2003.   
 
(4) 
Despite the Family Court’s order, Wife remained in the marital home 
past March 22, 2003 and failed to make any mortgage payments, resulting in 
arrears of $7,870.50.  Following the filing of Husband’s second motion for interim 
relief, the Family Court issued an order on April 17, 2003, holding Wife in 
contempt for the second time, granting an attachment of Wife’s wages, granting 
 
 
-3-
default judgment in favor of Husband in the matters of property division and 
alimony, and awarding Husband attorney’s fees. 
 
(5) 
On May 5, 2003, the Family Court issued a default order granting 
exclusive possession of the marital home to Husband and assessing $7,870.50 
against Wife for past due mortgage payments.1  On June 4, 2003, Wife moved to 
reargue the Family Court’s May 5, 2003 order, arguing that she had received no 
notice “about any motions.”  The Family Court denied the motion, stating that 
Wife’s counsel had been properly notified of the motions leading up to the entry of 
the default order. 
 
(6) 
In this appeal, Wife claims that: a) she failed to receive notice of the 
default; and b) the Family Court abused its discretion by granting Husband’s 
motion for default judgment.2    
 
(7) 
Wife cites no specific facts in support of her first claim.  Moreover, a 
review of the Family Court record provides no support for her claim that she was 
not given notice of the Family Court orders concerning the default.  Rather, the 
record reflects that, on December 3, 2002, counsel entered an appearance on behalf 
                                                 
1 The record reflects that Husband waived his right to a substantial amount of money he was 
owed in the property division and sought only the past due mortgage payments.   
2 In her reply letter, however, Wife states that she knew of the Family Court’s orders to vacate 
the property, but chose to stay because she could not locate “suitable accommodations” for 
herself and her children.   
 
 
-4-
of Wife and that, up until June 9, 2003, when Wife’s counsel was permitted to 
withdraw, Wife’s counsel was properly served with all filings in the case.   
 
(8) 
As for Wife’s second claim, the record reflects a continuous course of 
dilatory conduct on the part of Wife, which the Family Court ultimately was 
compelled to address by its entry of the default judgment.  Under these 
circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice