Title: Pave v. Pave
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 410, 2021
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 12, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MASON PAVE,1  
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MARIAH PAVE, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 410, 2021 
§   
§  Court Below—Family Court of 
§  the State of Delaware  
§   
§  File No. CN18-02129  
§  Petition Nos. 18-34712, 21-07846,  
§  21-06568 
§ 
§   
 
         Submitted:  November 18, 2022 
 
 
 
 
        Decided:  January 12, 2023 
 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.  
ORDER 
 
 
 
After careful consideration of the opening brief, answering brief, and the 
record below, we conclude that the judgment of the Family Court should be affirmed 
on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its decision on ancillary matters dated 
June 16, 2021 and its orders on cross-motions for reargument and attorneys’ fees 
dated December 2, 2021.2  The petitioner below-appellant, Mason Pave (“the 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 With his December 28, 2021 notice of appeal, the appellant included a December 13, 2021 
order scheduling a hearing in February 2022 for his Rule to Show Cause Petition Nos. 21-07846 
and 21-06568.  After the hearing, the Family Court dismissed Petition Nos. 21-07846 and 21-
06568 on March 22, 2022.  The appellant makes no arguments concerning the Family Court’s 
resolution of those petitions in his opening brief and has therefore waived any arguments as to 
those petitions.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(3) (“The merits of any argument that is not raised in 
the body of the opening brief shall be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court on 
appeal.”). 
2 
 
Husband”), challenges the Family Court’s allocation of tax debts between the parties 
and acceptance of the testimony of respondent below-appellee, Mariah Pave (“the 
Wife”).  He does not cite any legal authority to support his conclusory argument that 
the Family Court’s allocation of tax debts between the parties violated the Internal 
Revenue Code or Internal Revenue Service policies.  He also failed to provide this 
Court with the transcript of the September 11, 2020 hearing on ancillary matters.  
Without an adequate record, the Court lacks a sufficient basis to review the 
Husband’s challenges to the Family Court’s acceptance of the Wife’s testimony.3  In 
any event, we are deferential to the Family Court’s assessment of a witness’s 
credibility and will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact.4   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is affirmed.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Gary F. Traynor  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice  
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
3 See, e.g., Franklin v. Franklin, 2015 WL 3885834, at *2 (Del. June 22, 2015) (holding that the 
appellant’s failure to provide a copy of a visitation hearing transcript meant that the Court did not 
have a sufficient basis to review the appellant’s challenges to the appellee’s credibility and the 
Family Court’s acceptance of the appellee’s testimony on certain issues).   
4 Wife (J. F. V.), v. Husband (O. W. V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).