Opinion
No. 158, 2003.
Submitted: August 15, 2003.
Decided: October 1, 2003.
Court Below-Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County File No. CK01-03959 Petition No. 01-22512.
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below
GATELY v. GATELY, 158 (Del. 10-1-2003) JOSEPH P. GATELY, Respondent Below-Appellant, v. HARRIET C. GATELY, Petitioner Below-Appellee. No. 158, 2003. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: August 15, 2003. Decided: October 1, 2003.
Court Below-Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County File No. CK01-03959 Petition No. 01-22512.
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
Myron T. Steele, Justice
This 1st day of October 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The respondent-appellant, Joseph P. Gately ("Husband"), filed an appeal from the Family Court's February 21, 2003 order dividing the marital property of Husband and petitioner-appellee, Harriet C. Gately ("Wife"). We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) In this appeal, Husband asserts eight separate claims that may fairly be summarized as follows: a) the Family Court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property as it did; and b) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the Family Court's decision. In particular, Husband disputes the Family Court's findings that Wife left her teaching career to help with Husband's business, that certain items of property were marital property rather than property of his business or customers, that a significant number of antiques and collectibles were missing from the marital home, that Wife has fewer opportunities than Husband to acquire assets and income, and that Wife was a partner of Husband in the business.
(3) Trial took place on June 6, 2002 and November 20, 2002. Wife testified that she has advanced degrees in the field of education and is currently working as a tutor for several Kent County, Delaware, school districts and Wesley College in Dover, Delaware. Before working as a tutor, she worked as the office manager at her husband's construction company, Gately Construction, for almost six years. That job included bookkeeping, dealing with subcontractors, attending meetings, filling out tax returns and writing up proposals and contracts. Before working at Gately Construction, Wife worked in administration at Delaware State University for approximately five years.
The parties were the only witnesses to testify on November 20, 2002. The record reflects that Husband requested a transcript of only that portion of the trial.
(4) Wife testified that, after her separation from Husband, she was able to retrieve certain items from the marital home, such as clothing, books and her dog, but that other items such as electronic equipment, antique furniture, collectibles, and jewelry had been removed. She stated that she had collected antiques for approximately 20 years. Wife submitted a statement of value for a number of items of jewelry prepared by a jewelry appraiser. Wife also submitted a list of 62 missing collectibles and 51 missing pieces of antique furnishings that she and her mother compiled from memory. She assigned a value to each item on the list by consulting with antiques dealers and reviewing antiques publications. On cross-examination, Wife marked a diagram of the marital home to show where these items had been located.
(5) Husband testified that for the past 20 years he has been a construction contractor in the City of Dover, with a specialty in Victorian restoration. An accident in March 2000 left him with an injured arm, which has limited his ability to do hands-on construction work and supervise his employees at job sites.
Husband testified that his business is much less profitable than it used to be and that he makes essentially no profit from the rental of a commercial property located adjacent to the marital home. Husband also testified that he disagreed with the list of missing items compiled by Wife and that the items either never existed or had been sold by Wife at yard sales or traded for items owned by Wife's mother. He acknowledged giving several of Wife's antiques and collectibles to a business associate.
(6) The Family Court has broad discretion in dividing marital property.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13 Del. C. § 1513; Linder v. Linder, 496 A.2d 1028, 1030 (Del. 1985).
The standard of review on a claim that the Family Court abused its discretion in dividing marital property is whether its decision was arbitrary or capricious. This Court will not overturn findings by the Family Court unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be overturned. Moreover, this Court will not disturb the Family Court's determination of questions of credibility on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
Chavin v. Cope, 243 A.2d 694, 695 (Del. 1968).
Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).
Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).
(7) The record in this case, and in particular the transcript of the parties' testimony on November 20, 2002, reflects no abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court in dividing the marital property and reflects that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support each of the factual findings disputed by Husband. To the extent the Family Court made factual findings based on the testimony of Wife which it found to be credible, we find no basis upon which to disturb those findings.
The Family Court's decision does not reflect that it found Wife to be a partner in Husband's business; rather, the Family Court found that Wife was the office manager for the business.
We decline to review documents that have been presented by Husband for the first time in this appeal. SUPR.CT.R. 8.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED.