Wife motion in Delaware

2022The Wife now appeals. (6) On appeal from a Family Court decision, this Court reviews the facts and law in addition to the Family Court’s inferences and deductions.6 We will not disturb factual findings “unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires their overturn.”7 Nor will we substitute our own opinion “for the inferences and deductions made by the [Family Court] where those inferences are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.”8 “Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”9 “If the law was correctly applied, we review for an abuse of disc

2022The Wife now appeals. (6) On appeal from a Family Court decision, this Court reviews the facts and law in addition to the Family Court’s inferences and deductions.6 We will not disturb factual findings “unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires their overturn.”7 Nor will we substitute our own opinion “for the inferences and deductions made by the [Family Court] where those inferences are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.”8 “Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”9 “If the law was correctly applied, we review for an abuse of disc

2022The Wife now appeals. (6) On appeal from a Family Court decision, this Court reviews the facts and law in addition to the Family Court’s inferences and deductions.6 We will not disturb factual findings “unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires their overturn.”7 Nor will we substitute our own opinion “for the inferences and deductions made by the [Family Court] where those inferences are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.”8 “Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”9 “If the law was correctly applied, we review for an abuse of disc

2022The Wife now appeals. (6) On appeal from a Family Court decision, this Court reviews the facts and law in addition to the Family Court’s inferences and deductions.6 We will not disturb factual findings “unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires their overturn.”7 Nor will we substitute our own opinion “for the inferences and deductions made by the [Family Court] where those inferences are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.”8 “Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”9 “If the law was correctly applied, we review for an abuse of disc

2019The Wife’s contention that the Husband represented in his answer to her first petition that she would receive the household items on her list is not convincing because the Husband was simply quoting language in the Wife’s petition and then providing a response. 6 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 7 Id. 8 CASA v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 834 A.2d 63, 66 (Del. 2003). 9 The Wife does not challenge the Family Court’s denial of her motions for reargument and for a new trial and has therefore waived those claims.

2019The Wife’s contention that the Husband represented in his answer to her first petition that she would receive the household items on her list is not convincing because the Husband was simply quoting language in the Wife’s petition and then providing a response. 6 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 7 Id. 8 CASA v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 834 A.2d 63, 66 (Del. 2003). 9 The Wife does not challenge the Family Court’s denial of her motions for reargument and for a new trial and has therefore waived those claims.

2019The Wife’s contention that the Husband represented in his answer to her first petition that she would receive the household items on her list is not convincing because the Husband was simply quoting language in the Wife’s petition and then providing a response. 6 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 7 Id. 8 CASA v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 834 A.2d 63, 66 (Del. 2003). 9 The Wife does not challenge the Family Court’s denial of her motions for reargument and for a new trial and has therefore waived those claims.

2018Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a party has thirty days from the filing of a final order to file an appeal.16 A motion for clarification typically does 13 Lankford v. Lankford, 157 A.3d 1235, 1241 (Del. 2017). 14 Id. at 1241–42. 15 Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 179 (Del. 2008). 16 Supr.

2018Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a party has thirty days from the filing of a final order to file an appeal.16 A motion for clarification typically does 13 Lankford v. Lankford, 157 A.3d 1235, 1241 (Del. 2017). 14 Id. at 1241–42. 15 Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 179 (Del. 2008). 16 Supr.

2014Julin v. Julin, 787 A.2d 82, 84 (Del.2001); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 636 A.2d 888, 892 (Del.1993); Lynam v. Gallagher, 526 A.2d 878, 885 (Del.1987); Gray v. Gray, 503 A.2d 198, 204 (Del.1986). 47 . 13 Del.

2014Julin v. Julin, 787 A.2d 82, 84 (Del.2001); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 636 A.2d 888, 892 (Del.1993); Lynam v. Gallagher, 526 A.2d 878, 885 (Del.1987); Gray v. Gray, 503 A.2d 198, 204 (Del.1986). 47 . 13 Del.

2014R.E.T. v. A.L.T., 410 A.2d 166, 168 (Del.1979). 3 .

2014Julin v. Julin, 787 A.2d 82, 84 (Del.2001); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 636 A.2d 888, 892 (Del.1993); Lynam v. Gallagher, 526 A.2d 878, 885 (Del.1987); Gray v. Gray, 503 A.2d 198, 204 (Del.1986). 47 . 13 Del.

2014Julin v. Julin, 787 A.2d 82, 84 (Del.2001); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 636 A.2d 888, 892 (Del.1993); Lynam v. Gallagher, 526 A.2d 878, 885 (Del.1987); Gray v. Gray, 503 A.2d 198, 204 (Del.1986). 47 . 13 Del.