Pinkston v. Pinkston
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LEANN PINKSTON,1 Respondent Below, Appellant, v. DANIEL PINKSTON, SR., Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 217, 2018 Court Below—Family Court of the State of Delaware File No. CN11-05841 Petition Nos. 11-40238 16-34602 Submitted: February 8, 2019 Decided: March 15, 2019 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family Court’s order dated March 26, 2018 resolving matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce. The appellant’s arguments regarding due process, the assignment of a judge to the case following the retirement of the former judge, and the reopening of the ancillary matters were not fairly raised before the Family Court and are therefore 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). waived, absent plain error, which we conclude does not exist.2 The appellant’s arguments concerning vehicle consignment and insurance for the beach property raise the issue of whether the parties have complied with the Family Court’s orders, rather than whether the Family Court erred in entering those orders, and similarly must be presented to the Family Court in the first instance. We conclude that the appellant’s other arguments provide no basis for reversing the Family Court’s wellreasoned order. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice 2 SUPR. CT. R 8. 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.
