Scott v. Scott

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SAMUEL SCOTT,1 § § § § § § § § § § § Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. NANCY SCOTT, Respondent Below, Appellee. No. 331, 2008 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County File No. CK88-4726 Pet. No. 07-17784 Submitted: November 14, 2008 Decided: January 30, 2009 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 30th day of January 2009, it appears to the Court that: (1) The pro se appellant seeks review of the Family Court s ancillary decisions of June 2, 2008, that divided the parties marital property, assigned a percentage of the appellant s military benefits to the appellee, and awarded alimony to the appellee. In his opening brief on appeal, the appellant requests that the Court return the matter to the Family Court for a new hearing. 2 The appellee has filed a motion to affirm.3 1 By Order dated July 2, 2008, the Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 2 The appellant s opening brief consists of a one-page letter. 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). (2) It is manifest on the face of the appellant s opening brief that this appeal is without merit.4 The Court has carefully considered the parties positions and the Family Court record, including the transcript of the June 2, 2008 property division hearing that the appellant ordered for this appeal. The Court can discern no legal error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court with respect to its division of the parties marital property, assignment of benefits to the appellee and/or grant of alimony to the appellee. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgments of the Family Court are AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 4 See Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979) (providing that this Court s review of appeals from the Family Court extends to a review of the facts and the law as well as a review of the inferences and deductions made by the trial judge). 2

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.