Title: Waters v. Mitchell
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 332, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 7, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PAMELA SANDERS WATERS,1 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 332, 2008 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
RICHARD MITCHELL,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
C.A. No. CS03-06217 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 30, 2009  
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of April 2009, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs on 
appeal and the Family Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The parties married in 1994, separated in February 2003 and divorced 
in October 2003.  The Family Court retained jurisdiction to decide ancillary 
matters.  Ancillary matters were stayed, however, while the appellant (“Wife”) 
went through bankruptcy proceedings. 
 
(2) 
Wife appeared pro se at the April 2, 2008 trial on ancillary matters.  
The appellee (“Husband”) was represented by counsel.  Wife has appealed the 
                                          
 
1 By Order dated July 2, 2008, the Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties.  Del. 
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
Family Court’s order of June 5, 2008, that divided the parties’ marital estate.  We 
have determined that there is no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(3) 
It appears from the record that the parties purchased a hair salon in 
1999 that they incorporated in 2001 (“the old business”).  Wife worked as a hair 
stylist in the old business and was listed as President and 75% shareholder.  
Husband contributed capital to the old business, performed office duties, and was 
listed as Secretary, Treasurer and 25% shareholder. 
 
(4) 
Shortly after the parties separated in February 2003, Wife, without 
notice to Husband, began a new hair salon business (“the new business”).  Wife 
incorporated the new business in April 2003 without notice to Husband and 
transferred the majority of the funds from the old business bank account into the 
new business bank account.  Wife dissolved the old business in June 2003 without 
notice to Husband. 
 
(5) 
In its June 5, 2008 order dividing the parties’ marital property, the 
Family Court ordered that Wife pay Husband the net sum of $23,337.49, an 
amount that included 35% of the old business as valued at $50,000.00.2  In her 
opening brief on appeal, Wife argues that Husband is not entitled to an equitable 
interest in the old business.  Also, Wife disputes the Family Court’s valuation of a 
                                          
 
2 The Family Court determined the value of the old business based on Wife’s testimony during 
the bankruptcy proceedings.   
 
3
gun collection, division of a Longaberger basket collection, and inclusion of a 
Capital One credit card as marital debt. 
 
(6) 
The Family Court has broad discretion to divide marital property 
under title 13, section 1513 of the Delaware Code.3  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.4  This Court will not disturb 
findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be 
overturned.5  Errors of law are reviewed de novo.6  If the Family Court has 
correctly applied the law, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.7 
 
(7) 
In this case, having carefully reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal 
and the Family Court record, including the April 2, 2008 trial transcript and the 
trial exhibits, we conclude that there is no basis for disturbing the factual findings 
of the Family Court and no errors of law.  We affirm the Family Court’s division 
of marital property on the basis of the Court’s decision of June 5, 2008. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1513 (1999).   
4 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).  
5 Id. 
6 Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 179 (Del. 2008). 
7 Id.