Title: Clark v. Clark
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 73, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 3, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
KATIE A. CLARK, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 73, 2009 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below: Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
ROBERT W. CLARK,  
 
)  File No. CN04-09446 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  Petition No. 04-36824 
 
 
Petitioner Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  July 7, 2010 
Decided:  August 18, 2010 
Corrected:  September 3, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 18th day of August, it appears to the Court that:  
(1) 
Spouses Clark1 divorced and sought judicial division of their marital 
property.  Wife alleges that by delaying the final judgment on ancillary matters 
beyond 90 days – after which Husband overpaid Wife’s mortgage, and Wife 
sought neither refinancing nor full-time employment – the trial judge forced Wife 
into personal bankruptcy.  Because Wife has not demonstrated that the delay 
financially prejudiced her, we AFFIRM the property division. 
                                                 
1 A pseudonym assigned by this Court pursuant to Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
(2) 
We will defer to the Family Court judge’s factual findings if 
substantial evidence supports them and they are not clearly wrong.2 
OVERPAYMENT 
(3) 
Husband’s alimony overpayments prevented – not caused – 
foreclosure of the Clarks’ marital home, where Wife continued to reside without 
Husband.  At the March 28, 2006 Eberly hearing,3 the trial judge discovered that 
Husband had been paying the Clarks’ two mortgages, rather than Court-ordered 
interim alimony.4  Husband began making mortgage payments after Wife failed to 
make those court-ordered mortgage payments, and he received notice of 
foreclosure.5 
(4) 
On January 30, 2009, the trial judge stated in her ancillary property 
division order that Husband had overpaid alimony by $9,171.6  On April 23, 2010, 
a different Family Court judge on remand stated that Husband had overpaid 
$10,235 on the mortgage, in lieu of alimony, from December 2004 to September 
                                                 
2 Bay City v. Williams, 2010 WL 2179801, at *1 (Del. Supr. June 1, 2010) (citing Levitt v. 
Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972)). 
3 A Family Court judge may arrange an Eberly Hearing to determine matters ancillary to a 
divorce, including custody, visitation, property division, alimony, and support. 
4 [Clark v. Clark], Pet. No. 08-32950, at *4-5 (Fam. Ct. Apr. 23, 2010). 
5 Id., at *3. 
6 Id., at *7. 
3 
 
2005 and from November 2005 to February 2006, but failed to pay $1,064 in 
alimony for August 2006, for a net overpayment to Wife of $9,171.7 
MORTGAGE APPROVAL 
(5) 
Wife had no cash, sought no job, knew not to rely on Husband for 
mortgage payments, and allowed the only financing option she pursued to expire 
before she could have reasonably expected the trial judge to issue the final order. 
(6) 
At the March 2006 Eberly hearing, the trial judge notified Wife that 
the trial judge would follow expert testimony attributing $25,000 earning capacity 
to her.8  Wife obtained a Quaker Financial Mortgage Inc. “Approved Homebuyer 
Certificate” that would expire on August 31, 2006, more than a month before the 
trial judge should have issued her final order.9  Wife did not seek an extension, nor 
did she apply for another mortgage from Quaker Financial or any other entity.10  
Wife received $3,500 annual salary, after the trial judge determined that she 
possessed $25,000 earning capacity; Wife did not submit evidence that she had 
sought additional employment, and did not obtain full-time employment until 
December 2006.11 
                                                 
7 Id., at *7. 
8 Id., at *4-5. 
9 Id., at *10. 
10 Id., at *11. 
11 Id., at *11. 
4 
 
DELAY 
(7) 
Before the lender’s refinancing offer expired, Wife repeatedly delayed 
discovery by failing to submit mandatory pre-trial forms.  This delay does not 
justify the trial judge’s inexplicable delay in issuing a final order, but it does 
militate against wife’s contention that the adverse financial consequences to the 
parties would have been avoided had the trial judge decided these issues at the 
Eberly hearing on or before the lender’s offer to refinance expired. 
(8) 
The trial judge ordered Wife to submit her portion of the Rule 52(d) 
Pre-Trial Stipulation Form by May 8, 2006, in order to highlight any discovery 
matters in dispute before the May 15 pre-trial conference.12  Wife failed to submit 
her 52(d) Form (1) by the May 8 court-ordered deadline, (2) at the May 15 pre-trial 
conference, (3) at the June 8 continued hearing, (4) by the June 20 court-ordered 
deadline, and (5) at the June 27 ancillary hearing.13 
(9) 
A District of Delaware Bankruptcy Court order stayed the Clarks’ 
ancillary proceedings from October 2007 until March 2008.14 
(10) Substantial evidence supports the trial judge’s findings of fact in her 
January 30, 2009 Order.  On remand, the record supports the judge’s findings and 
                                                 
12 Id., at *5. 
13 Id., at *5. 
14 Id., at *6. 
5 
 
conclusions of law in regard to the consequences of delay on the parties’ equitable 
positions in his April 23, 2010 Order on Remand. 
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice