Title: Clark v. Clark
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 547, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 12, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARGARET A. CLARK,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JAMES W. CLARK, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 547, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS96-03741 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 11, 2010 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 12, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of August 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Margaret Clark (the “Wife”), filed this appeal 
from the Family Court’s decision, dated August 18, 2009, which denied her 
petition for modification of alimony and also denied her petition for a rule to 
show cause.  We find no merit to the Wife’s arguments on appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm the Family Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties in accordance with 
Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that the parties were married on October 19, 
1974, separated on August 12, 1990, and finally divorced on August 22, 1996.  
As part of its resolution of matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce, the Family 
Court ordered that the Husband pay alimony to the Wife in the amount of 
$800 per month for one year beginning January 2007.  Thereafter, the 
Husband’s alimony obligation was reduced to $400 per month. 
(3) 
In October 2008, the Wife filed a motion for modification of 
alimony requesting that the Husband’s obligation be increased to $800 per 
month.  The Wife alleged that she was permanently disabled and could not 
work.  In February 2009, the Wife also filed a petition for a rule to show 
cause, alleging that the Husband had failed to purchase an insurance policy to 
cover burial expenses upon his death, which he had been ordered to do by the 
Family Court in 1996.   
(4) 
The Family Court held a hearing on both petitions on May 19, 
2009.  The Wife and the Husband were the only parties to testify.  Neither 
was represented by counsel, and no other evidence was presented.  The Wife 
testified that she had been living in a room in the Husband’s house since 
October 2003.  She contended that the Husband had not paid her any alimony 
since she moved into his house.  She testified that she was permanently 
disabled and had not worked since 2002.  Her sole source of income was $706 
 
3
in Social Security.  She testified that she needed at least $800 in alimony in 
order to be able to move out of the Husband’s house and into her own place.  
The Husband testified that he had not paid the Wife alimony since she had 
moved into his house in lieu of collecting rent from her.  He further testified 
that if she moved out, he would resume paying $400 per month in alimony. 
(5) 
Following the hearing, the Family Court issued its decision 
denying the Wife’s request for an increase in alimony.  In reviewing the 
testimony, the Court, citing title 13, section 1519 of the Delaware Code, 
found that the Wife had not established that her economic status had changed 
substantially since the Family Court’s original alimony order had been 
issued.2  Moreover, the Family Court found that the Husband was actually in 
a worse financial situation than he had been in 1996.  The trial court 
concluded that increasing the Husband’s alimony obligation would unduly 
benefit the Wife and cause the Husband undue hardship.  With respect to the 
Wife’s rule to show cause petition, the Family Court found that the Wife had 
presented no evidence to support her claim that the Husband was in violation 
of the Family Court’s 1996 order with respect to obtaining life insurance for 
burial expenses.  
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1519(a)(4) provides that an alimony order may be 
modified “only upon a showing of real and substantial change of circumstances.” 
 
4
 (6) 
In her opening brief on appeal, the Wife contends that the Family 
Court ignored her testimony and erred in refusing to order the Husband to pay 
all the alimony he owes her since October 2003.  The payment of back 
alimony, however, was not an issue that the Wife argued to the Family Court 
in the first instance.  Accordingly, we will not consider this claim for the first 
time on appeal.3   
(7) 
Having carefully considered the Wife’s opening brief and the 
record on appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment below should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Family Court’s well-reasoned decision dated 
August 18, 2009.  The Family Court’s findings of fact are amply supported by 
the testimony presented to it, and we find no error in its denial of the Wife’s 
petition for an increase in alimony.4  Moreover, we find no error in the Family 
Court’s conclusion that the Wife had presented no evidence to support her 
rule to show cause petition. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
4 Gregory J.M. v. Carolyn A.M., 442 A.2d 1373, 1374 (Del. 1982).