Williams v. Green
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ANNIE J. WILLIAMS, § § § § No. 419, 1999 § § Court Below: Family Court § of the State of Delaware in § and for New Castle County § File No. 98-10597 § Petition Nos. 98-31627 and § 99-05237 § Petitioner Below, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. HENRY E. GREEN, Respondent Below, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Submitted: May 3, 2000 Decided: June 13, 2000 Before WALSH, HARTNETT, and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 13th day of June 2000, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court as follows: (1) This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a Family Court decision dividing the marital estate of the parties (hereinafter referred to as Wife and Husband ) following a divorce. Upon full review of the record, we conclude that, with one exception, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in: (i) allocating the marital debts; (ii) dividing the marital property on a 60 percent/40 percent basis; (iii) awarding the Wife a share of the Husband s retirement pension; and (iv) awarding counsel fees to the wife. (2) With respect to the Wife s claim that the Family Court erred in allowing the Husband excess mileage fees on his rental automobile, we note that there appears to be an inconsistency between the Family Court s bench ruling disallowing that item of expense and its final order giving Husband credit for that item. In the light of this inconsistency, we are unable to determine what the Family Court s final order was and the basis for it. Accordingly, that aspect of the Family Court s decision must be REMANDED for further explanation by the Family Court as to the apparent inconsistency. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART for further determination by the Family Court with respect to the Husband s excess mileage claim. Jurisdiction is retained. See Supr. Ct. R. 19(c). BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
