Title: Simpson v. Simpson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 601, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 8, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AMY LOUISE SIMPSON,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CALVIN G. SIMPSON, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 601, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CN15-02666 (S) 
§                     
§  Petition Nos. 17-30245,  
§  18-00722 
§                         
§ 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  May 31, 2019 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  August 8, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that:   
(1) 
The petitioner below-appellant, Amy Louise Simpson (“the Wife”), has 
filed this appeal from the Family Court’s order, dated November 9, 2018, denying 
her motions for relief under Family Court Civil Rules 60(b), new trial under 59(a), 
and reargument under 59(e).   After careful consideration, this Court concludes that 
the Family Court’s judgment should be affirmed. 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
(2) 
The Wife and the respondent below-appellee, Calvin G. Simpson (“the 
Husband”), were married on March 20, 1993 and divorced on August 14, 2015.  
After an ancillary hearing, the Family Court entered an order on property division 
and alimony on September 19, 2016.  The Family Court ordered the parties to divide 
all household goods (except for furniture that the Husband documented as purchased 
before the marriage) 50/50 by agreement or by the two-list method.2   
(3) 
On September 27, 2017, the Wife filed a petition for a rule to show 
cause, alleging that the Husband had refused to honor her list of requested household 
goods and had failed to provide two lists of household goods.  The Wife also alleged 
that the Husband had failed to sign a release for funds the Wife received in 
connection with a car accident.  In response, the Husband stated that he had emailed 
the required lists to the Wife’s counsel on December 28, 2016.  The Husband also 
stated that he had returned the signed release to the Wife’s counsel. 
                                                 
2 This Court has described the two list method as follows:  
 
The “two-list method” is a means of dividing marital household furnishings and 
miscellaneous tangible personal property where one spouse prepares two separate 
lists of the property subject to division.  The other spouse then gets to select the list 
of personal property that he or she wishes to retain, while the other list of property 
is retained by the party who prepared the lists. The idea is that, because the other 
spouse has the choice between the two lists, the list-preparing spouse will prepare 
balanced lists, and the division will be fair.  
 
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 2018 WL 4031049, at *1 n.2 (Del. Aug. 23, 2018) (citations omitted). 
3 
 
(4) 
At the November 8, 2017 hearing on the rule to show cause, the Wife’s 
counsel admitted that after he received the Husband’s response to the Rule to Show 
Cause petition, he had reviewed his email files and had found the Husband’s email 
with the two lists.  He informed the Family Court that the Wife requested the items 
on List A.  The Wife’s counsel stated that he never received an original copy of the 
signed release.  The Family Court resolved the release issue by having the Husband 
sign the release and notarizing the release.  The Family Court entered a written order 
holding that the Wife would receive the List A items and that the Husband would 
receive the List B items.  The order required the parties to cooperate in transferring 
the property on the lists.  The order also established the schedule for the Wife’s 
intended application for attorneys’ fees.  
(5) 
In addition to filing a motion for attorneys’ fees, the Wife filed a motion 
for a new trial.  The motion alleged that the Husband failed to include all of the 
household items acquired by the parties during the marriage on the lists but the Wife 
had selected List A to resolve the matter, the Husband had failed to release the items 
on List A, and the Husband and had failed to comply with the Family Court’s orders.  
Through newly retained counsel, the Husband opposed both motions.  The Husband 
argued that he was not found in contempt so there was no basis for an award of 
attorneys’ fees, he had responded to inquiries regarding the retrieval of the List A 
items, and there was no basis for a new trial.  The Family Court denied both motions.      
4 
 
(6) 
On January 9, 2018, the Wife filed a motion for relief from the 
November 8, 2017 order under Rule 60(b).  The Wife argued that the Husband had 
failed to comply with the ordered two-list method because List B contained more 
than forty items that also appeared on List A.  The Wife also filed another petition 
for a rule to show cause, alleging that the Husband had failed to comply with the 
November 8, 2017 order.  The Husband opposed both motions, arguing that the 
Husband did not have counsel at the time he prepared the lists and did not know how 
to comply with the two-list method.  The Husband also argued that the Wife or her 
counsel should have discovered the mistake with the lists sooner and that the Wife 
was seeking items he acquired after their separation or that she had already collected 
from him.   
(7) 
On February 13, 2018, the Family Court granted in part and denied in 
part the motion for relief under Rule 60(b).  The Family Court held that the Wife 
was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), but that the Family Court could exercise 
its equitable powers under 10 Del. C. § 925 to grant relief.3  The Family Court found 
that both parties had acted with unclean hands because they both had ample 
opportunity to discover the Husband’s error and correct it at the November 8, 2017 
hearing.  The Family Court ordered the Husband to divide the items on List A into 
                                                 
3 10 Del. C. § 925(15) (“In any civil action where jurisdiction is otherwise conferred upon the 
Family Court, it may enter such orders against any party to the action as the principles of equity 
appear to require.”). 
5 
 
two lists and the Wife to pick one of the lists.  The Family Court reminded the Wife 
that she was not entitled to items the Husband purchased after the separation and 
that she could not request items that she had already collected.  The Family Court 
dismissed the Wife’s rule to show cause petition as moot.   
(8) 
On February 23, 2018, the Wife filed a motion for reargument, arguing 
that the Husband had acted wrongly by preparing lists that did not contain all of the 
household goods and that the Wife should receive all of the items on List A or have 
the opportunity to prepare two lists of all the relevant household goods.  The 
Husband opposed the motion.  On March 21, 2018, the Wife filed a motion for 
enlargement of time and an objection to the two lists prepared by Husband.  The 
Wife argued that the lists prepared by the Husband did not include many of the items 
on List A and that the Husband failed to show he purchased the omitted items after 
separation. 
(9) 
The Family Court granted the Wife’s motion for reargument so that the 
parties could offer evidence and testimony at a rule to show cause hearing.  The 
Family Court would then determine how to divide the parties’ property.  The hearing 
was scheduled for May 24, 2018 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.  By the time the hearing 
concluded on May 24th, only the Husband had testified.  The Family Court scheduled 
another hearing on June 26, 2018 from 2:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. so that the parties 
could conclude their cases.     
6 
 
(10) The June 26, 2018 hearing began at 2:05 p.m. and concluded at 2:06 
p.m.  The Wife’s counsel was seen entering the courthouse, but was not present for 
the hearing.  The Husband’s counsel asked for dismissal of the matter with prejudice.  
When the Family Court asked for the Wife’s position on the motion to dismiss, the 
Wife asked that the motion not be granted.  She stated that she did not know why 
her counsel was not present.  The Family Court held that the Wife’s counsel was late 
and dismissed the matter with prejudice.  On June 28, 2018, the Family Court entered 
a written order dismissing the case.  In the written order, the Family Court found that 
dismissal with prejudice was necessary because: 
The parties have litigated property division of personal property since 
2016, have been unable to come to a resolution, and as is discussed in 
its February 2018 Order, the Court believes Wife and Wife’s counsel, 
like Husband, acted negligent and careless in not correcting or 
discovering Husband’s error in copying the first forty-four items in list 
“A” to list “B.”  While it may seem unfair, the Court may impose upon 
a party the consequences of her chosen attorney’s course of conduct.  
Following Wife’s counsel disregard to timely appear at the Court’s 
scheduled hearing, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is 
appropriate, and Husband shall not be held in contempt.4    
  
(11) The Wife’s counsel filed motions under Rule 59(a), 59(e), and 60(b).  
In addition to arguing again that the Husband had failed to comply with the Family 
Court’s orders regarding the lists of household items, the Wife’s counsel stated that 
he was late for the June 26, 2018 hearing because he became ill and lightheaded as 
                                                 
4 File No. CN15-002666, Petition No. 18-00722, Order at 2 (Del. Fam. Ct. June 28, 2018) 
(hereinafter referred to as “Order at __”). 
7 
 
he walked to the courthouse.  The parties were still in the courtroom when he arrived.  
Counsel submitted paperwork showing that he went to the medical aid unit that night 
for lightheadedness and high blood pressure.   The Husband opposed the motions, 
arguing that the Wife’s counsel appeared fine when he was walking to the 
courthouse, the Wife’s counsel had failed to respond to the Family Court’s telephone 
calls, and the Wife’s counsel did not inform court staff or the Husband’s counsel that 
he had suffered a health-related emergency when he arrived late to the hearing.  The 
Husband also noted that the Wife’s counsel did not seek medical attention until six 
hours after the hearing and did not receive any treatment at that time other than being 
advised to see his primary physician if his conditions worsened.   
(12) On November 9, 2018, the Family Court denied all of the Wife’s 
motions.  The Family Court expressed sympathy if the Wife’s counsel had indeed 
fallen ill on the way to courthouse, but noted that counsel failed to notify the Family 
Court of this illness, waited six hours to seek medical attention, and offered no 
evidence to substantiate the seriousness of his illness.  This appeal followed.    
(13) This Court reviews the Family Court’s factual and legal determinations 
as well as its inferences and deductions.5  We will not disturb the Family Court’s 
rulings on appeal if the court’s findings of fact are supported by the record and its 
explanations, deductions, and inferences are the product of an orderly and logical 
                                                 
5 Long v. Div. of Family Servs., 41 A.3d 367, 370 (Del. 2012). 
8 
 
reasoning process.6  We review legal rulings de novo.7  If the Family Court correctly 
applied the law, then our standard of review is abuse of discretion.8   
(14) The Wife’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i) the 
parties reached  a settlement at the November 8, 2017 hearing and the Family Court 
erred by failing to enforce its November 8, 2017 order that the Wife receive the items 
on List A; and (ii) the Family Court erred in depriving the Wife of the opportunity 
to present her case at the June 26, 2018 hearing and in denying her motion for relief 
under Rule 60(b).9   
(15) As to the Wife’s first argument, the record supports the Family Court’s 
implicit rejection of the Wife’s claim that the parties reached an enforceable 
settlement at the November 8, 2017 hearing.  The Family Court determined that  the 
Husband, who was pro se at the time he prepared the lists, incorrectly, but not 
fraudulently, prepared two lists containing many of the same items.  The Wife’s 
contention that the Husband represented in his answer to her first petition that she 
would receive the household items on her list is not convincing because the Husband 
was simply quoting language in the Wife’s petition and then providing a response.  
                                                 
6 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 
7 Id. 
8 CASA v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 834 A.2d 63, 66 (Del. 2003). 
9 The Wife does not challenge the Family Court’s denial of her motions for reargument and for a 
new trial and has therefore waived those claims.  Supreme Court Rule 14(b)(vi)(A)(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.”). 
9 
 
Given the overlapping nature of the lists, it is unclear what the Husband was offering 
for the Wife to collect (other than unspecified personal belongings) in his response 
to her petition.   
(16) At the November 8, 2017 hearing no one said anything about the lists 
containing many of the same items, the Husband preparing the lists incorrectly, or a 
mutual agreement that the parties had agreed to deviate from the two-list method 
with the Wife receiving household goods that appeared on both List A and List B.  
The Family Court’s written order that the Wife receive the items on List A as she 
requested and that the Husband receive the items on List B reflects the standard 
application of the two-list method.  In issuing this order, the Family Court was 
unaware that the lists contained many of same items, making it unclear who was to 
receive items that appeared on both lists.   
(17) The Wife’s counsel did not inform the Family Court until the January 
2018 motion for relief under Rule 60(b) that the lists contained many of the same 
items.  In deciding this motion, the Family Court found that both the Wife and the 
Husband had acted with unclean hands and exercised its equitable powers to order 
the Husband to divide the List A items into two lists and for the Wife to select one 
of the lists.  After the parties were still unable to agree on what should appear on the 
lists, the Family Court scheduled a new rule to show cause hearing so the parties 
could offer evidence and testimony and the Family Court could decide how to divide 
10 
 
the household goods.  Given the confusing circumstances and both sides’ 
contribution to that confusion, the Family Court was well within its discretion in 
deciding to resolve how the household items should be divided after a new hearing. 
(18) The Wife next argues that the Family Court abused its discretion in 
dismissing her petition with prejudice and in denying her motion for relief under 
Rule 60(b).  “[T]he grant or denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is generally reviewed for 
an abuse of discretion.  A claim that the trial court employed an incorrect legal 
standard, however, raises a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”10  A 
final judgment may be reopened under Rule 60(b) for a variety of reasons, including 
mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) and “any other 
reason justifying relief” under Rule 60(b)(6).  Excusable neglect is “neglect which 
might have been the act of a reasonable prudent person under the circumstances.”11  
Rule 60(b)(6) requires a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.”12  Rule 60(b) is 
liberally construed in light of the underlying policy in favor of a trial on the merits, 
but the movant bears the burden of establishing a basis for relief.13 
(19) In reviewing the Wife’s Rule 60(b) motion, Family Court correctly 
examined whether: (i) the Wife established a basis for relief under Rule 60(b); (ii) 
                                                 
10 MCA, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 785 A.2d 625, 638 (Del .2001). 
11 Christiana Mall, LLC v. Emory Hill and Co., 90 A.3d 1087, 1091 (Del. 2014). 
12 Jewell v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 401 A.2d 88, 90 (Del. 1979). 
13 Battaglia v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, 379 A.2d 1132, 1135 (Del. 1977). 
11 
 
the outcome of the case would be different if the requested relief was granted; and 
(iii) whether the nonmoving party will suffer substantial prejudice if the judgment is 
reopened.14  The Family Court also considered whether the Wife was entitled to relief 
under Rule 60(b)(6).  As the Family Court recognized, the Wife did not identify 
which provision or provisions of Rule 60(b) that she relied upon in her motion.   In 
her briefs on appeal, the Wife makes one reference to Rule 60(b)(1), but primarily 
relies upon Rule 60(b)(6).  We have considered both provisions.   
(20) 
Although the Family Court did not explicitly address whether the Wife 
had shown excusable neglect for her counsel’s late appearance at the June 26, 2018 
hearing, the Family Court did in substance consider this factor.  The Family Court 
expressed doubts concerning counsel’s explanation for his late arrival.15  As the 
Family Court found, the Wife’s counsel failed to notify the court of his illness, 
waited six hours to receive medical attention, and did not submit evidence 
substantiating the severity of his illness.  There is no indication in the record that 
when the Wife’s counsel arrived late for the hearing that he informed anyone, 
including his client, that he had fallen ill on the way to the courthouse.  Under these 
                                                 
14 Tsipouras v. Tsipouras, 677 A.2d 493, 495 (Del. 1996) (listing factors this Court will consider 
in deciding whether there was abuse of discretion). 
15 Order at 8 (“The Court is sympathetic to Wife’s counsel if he suffered an illness on his way to 
Court….”) (emphasis added). 
12 
 
circumstances, we cannot second-guess the Family Court’s implicit finding that the 
Wife’s counsel had not demonstrated excusable neglect. 
(21) 
Likewise, we cannot find that the Family Court erred in holding that the 
Wife failed to show the likelihood of a different outcome on her petition for a rule 
to show cause.  The property division order was issued in September 2016, but the 
Wife’s counsel did not contact the Husband until December 2016 and did not file 
the petition for a rule to show cause until September 2017.  That petition incorrectly 
stated that Husband had not provided two lists, but as the Wife’s counsel admitted 
at the November 8, 2017 hearing the Husband had emailed him lists in December 
2017.  Instead of promptly informing the Husband and the Family Court that the lists 
contained many of the same items and were not in accordance with the two-list 
method, the Wife pursued an argument—found to be unsupported by the record by 
the Family Court as discussed above—that the parties had agreed for the Wife to 
receive items that appeared on both lists.   After the Family Court exercised its 
equitable powers to try and resolve the dispute, the Wife’s counsel failed to appear 
on time for the hearing and then offered a questionable explanation for this failure.  
Given these facts, the Family Court’s determination that the Wife would not succeed 
in her petition to hold the Husband in contempt is supported by the record.   
(22) 
The Family Court also had a sufficient basis in the record to find that 
the Husband would be substantially prejudiced if the judgment was reopened.  The 
13 
 
property division dispute involves household goods.  The parties have been 
separated for years and have set up separate households.  There is no indication that 
the disputed household goods are particularly valuable.  These factors support the 
Family Court’s determination that forcing the Husband to continue litigating the 
Wife’s rule to show cause petition at this point would substantially prejudice him.      
(23) 
Finally, the Family Court’s finding the Wife failed to establish 
extraordinary circumstances to justify relief under Rule 60(b) is also supported by 
the record.  Contrary to the Wife’s position, this was not a situation where the Family 
Court hastily dismissed a meritorious case after counsel for one party was late for a 
hearing after suddenly falling ill.  As the Family Court found, the Wife pursued her 
rule to show cause petition over the division of household goods in a dilatory and 
confusing manner and her counsel’s explanation for his untimely appearance was 
questionable. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice