Jenkins v. Jenkins
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RANDI JENKINS,1 Respondent Below, Appellant, v. BRADLEY JENKINS, Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 259, 2012 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County File No. CN05-02658 CPI No. 10-28585 Submitted: September 21, 2012 Decided: October 31, 2012 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 31st day of October 2012, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the record below,2 it appears to the Court that: (1) The respondent-appellant, Randi Jenkins ( Wife ), filed an appeal from the Family Court s May 8, 2012 order dismissing the request for an ancillary hearing on property division, permanent alimony, and costs filed 1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated May 17, 2012. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 2 Because the appellee failed to file an answering brief, the Court notified the parties on August 22, 2012, that the appeal would be considered on the basis of the appellant s opening brief and the record below. by the petitioner-appellee, Bradley Jenkins ( Husband ). We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) The record before us reflects that, following the Family Court s grant of a continuance, the hearing on matters ancillary to the parties July 7, 2011 divorce was re-scheduled for May 7, 2012. The ancillary matters to be taken up by the Family Court included property division, permanent alimony, and court costs. On the day of the re-scheduled hearing, Wife telephoned the Family Court and received permission to participate by telephone due to her illness. At the time of the hearing, however, Wife did not answer her phone and did not return the Family Court s phone call. Moreover, Husband failed to appear and did not contact the Family Court regarding his failure to appear. On May 8, 2012, the Family Court dismissed the case. (3) In her appeal from the Family Court s May 8, 2012 order, Wife claims that she was sick at the time of the hearing and did not hear the telephone when the Family Court called her. (4) A Family Court decision to dismiss a petition is reviewed by this Court for an abuse of discretion.3 This Court accepts the factual findings of 3 Beck v. Beck, 766 A.2d 482, 484 (Del. 2001). 2 the Family Court unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be overturned.4 (5) We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court in ordering the dismissal of all matters ancillary to the parties divorce under the circumstances presented here. The judgment of the Family Court will, therefore, be affirmed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 4 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 3
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.
