Opinion ID: 2277974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The parties were married on October 1, 1988. They separated in July, 1989. The next month, August of 1989, the Husband was involved in a motorcycle accident. It is undisputed that the Husband was rendered physically and mentally incompetent as a result of the accident. On August 7, 1990, the Wife filed a petition for divorce on the alternate grounds of incompatibility and misconduct. Following service of the divorce petition, the Husband's father, James L. Hoffman, Sr., filed a petition, with supporting affidavits, requesting to be appointed as the guardian ad litem for his son. That petition was granted pursuant to an order which was entered by the Family Court on February 28, 1991. Fam.Ct.Civ.R. 17(b). The Husband's guardian ad litem filed an answer to the divorce petition on March 8, 1991. The answer admitted the parties' incompatibility but denied the allegation of misconduct. The Husband's guardian ad litem also filed a counterclaim for divorce and a petition for ancillary relief. The parties were divorced by a decree dated April 23, 1991. Ancillary jurisdiction was retained. Following the entry of the divorce decree, the Family Court held a conference on November 27, 1991, to schedule the parties unresolved petitions for ancillary relief. One of the issues addressed during that scheduling conference was the Husband's request for alimony. The Husband's guardian ad litem asserted that the provisions of 13 Del.C. § 1518(f) were applicable to the Husband's ancillary petition for alimony and, therefore, that the Husband was eligible to be awarded alimony for an indefinite period of time. That statute provides: No decree that may enter shall relieve a spouse from any obligation imposed by law as a result of the marriage for the support or maintenance of a spouse adjudicated to be mentally incompetent prior to the decree, unless such spouse has sufficient property or means of support. In support of the Husband's position, the guardian ad litem cited the first paragraph of the February 28, 1991 order effectuating the guardian's appointment. That paragraph read: Respondent, James L. Hoffman, Jr., is adjudicated mentally incompetent. The Wife responded that there had been no prior adjudication of the Husband's incompetence, as that term is used in 13 Del.C. § 1518(f), since there had been no hearing on that issue, when the Family Court signed the Husband's proposed form of order appointing a guardian ad litem. The Family Court agreed with the Wife's contention that a condition precedent to an adjudication of incompetency was a hearing. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that it had been an oversight to approve paragraph one in the form of order, submitted by the Husband, which it had executed appointing the Husband's guardian ad litem. On November 27, 1991, the Family Court corrected the February 28, 1991 order, ex mero motu, by deleting the first paragraph. As authority for that action, the Family Court relied upon its authority to correct oversights. Fam.Ct. Civ.R. 60(a). The Husband promptly filed a motion for relief from the Family Court's November 27, 1991, judgment, correcting the February 28, 1991 order. [1] In that motion, the Husband alleged that he had relied to his detriment upon the language in paragraph one, adjudicating him incompetent, which had been stricken from the order appointing the guardian ad litem. In particular, the Husband argued that his ancillary petition for alimony would be substantially affected adversely, since 13 Del.C. § 1518(f) required an adjudication of mental incompetency prior to the entry of the divorce decree. In the absence of a prior adjudication of his mental incompetency, the Husband argued that instead of a right to seek financial support from the Wife, for an unrestricted time period, his right to alimony would be limited to a period of time not exceeding one-half of the length of the parties' very short marriage. See 13 Del.C. §§ 1512(d) and 1518(f). The Family Court granted the Husband's motion for relief from its November 27, 1991 judgment, which had corrected the February 28, 1991 order. The Family Court afforded the Husband that relief on February 19, 1992, by vacating the prior divorce decree. [2] That same day, it held a hearing and adjudicated the Husband mentally incompetent. The proceedings on February 19, 1992 concluded with the entry of the (second) final divorce decree which is the basis for the present appeal. The ancillary proceedings in this matter have been stayed by the Family Court during the pendency of this appeal.