J.C. v. C.L.

FELICE GLENNON KERR NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

JUDGE 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 9400

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3732

March 20, 2026 Michelle R. Skoranski, Esquire The Yeager Law Firm LLC

2 Mill Road, Suite 105 Wilmington, DE 19806 Felicia Brownell, Esquire Brownell Law Group LLC

252 Mariners Way Bear, DE 19701

LETTER DECISION

& ORDER Re: J------ C--------- v C------ L----- File No.: CN23-05584; Petition No.: 24-08494 Petition Type: Ancillary Matters

Dear Counsel & Parties:

The Court held a two-day hearing on December 12, 2025, and January 29, 2026, to resolve all matters ancillary to the divorce of J------ C--------- ("Wife") and C------ L----- ("Husband"). Wife was present at the hearing with her counsel, Michelle R. Skoranski, Esq. Husband was present at the hearing with his counsel, Felicia Brownell, Esq. The parties have three minor children of the marriage. Both parties participated in the hearing. In dispute is the division of the parties' property and each party's earning potential. After considering the evidence presented, the Court issues the following Order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties married on November 7, 2020, separated on December 1, 2023, and were officially divorced by Final Decree of the Court on November 25, 2024. On April 10, 2024, Wife filed a Petition for Divorce. The Court held a case management conference ("CMC") on August 5, 2024. On August 27, 2024, Husband filed an Answer to Petition for Divorce. The Court held a case management teleconference on October 24, 2024. On October 24, 2024, Husband filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. A response to Husband's motion was filed by Wife on October 28, 2024. Husband's motion was denied by the Court on October 30, 2024. On November 8, 2024, Husband filed a "Motion to Amend Divorce Petition to Annulment Petition." The Court denied this "Motion to Amend" on November 25, 2024. On November 25, 2024, Wife filed a Request to Proceed Without a Hearing regarding the Petition for Divorce. On that same day, the Court issued a Final Decree of divorce. Husband filed a Request to Proceed Without a Hearing on

1

Page 2

December 10, 2024, which was denied by the Court on December 12, 2024. Wife filed a Motion for Interim Relief on December 30, 2024, which was denied on January 8, 2025. The parties filed their Ancillary Financial Disclosure Report ("AFDR") on January 27, 2025. The Court issued a Scheduling Order on January 28, 2025, scheduling a CMC for February 26, 2025. On February 21, 2025, Wife filed a Motion for Continuance which was denied by the Court on February 25, 2025. On February 26, 2025, the Court held a CMC and scheduled a pre- trial conference for June 18, 2025, and an ancillary hearing on July 23, 2025. On March 11, 2025, Husband filed "Respondent's Motion to Compel Petitioner to Respond to Respondent's First Request For Production of Documents." On March 21, 2025, Wife filed a response to Husband's Motion to Compel. The Court denied Husband's Motion to Compel on March 21, 2025. On April 3, 2025, Husband filed another Motion to Compel which was denied by the Court on April 17,

2025.

On June 3, 2025, Wife filed a "Motion to Compel Discovery Responses." Husband filed

"Respondent's Response to Motion to Compel" on June 11, 2025. On June 13, 2025, Wife filed a Motion for Continuance which was granted by the Court on June 16, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the Court denied Wife's "Motion to Compel Discovery Responses." On July 23, 2025, the Court held a CMC where the parties rescheduled the instant petition for a hearing on December 12, 2025, and submitted an Ancillary Pretrial Stipulation. Between December 4, 2025, and December 9, 2025, the parties filed six (6) Requests to Participate Remotely, some of which were granted and some of which were denied.

MATTERS IN AGREEMENT

The following matters are in agreement, due to stipulations in the Pretrial Stipulation,

"Matters in Agreement and Dispute", placed on the record or lack of disputes during the hearing. Assets

1. The Home: -- ------- -----, New Castle, DE 19720 ("the Home") was purchased on August 29, 2014, for $209,000 with a loan of $206,097. The Home was purchased, mortgaged, and deeded solely in Husband's name. As of the date of marriage, November 7, 2020, the Home was appraised for $225,000 and the mortgage was $138,764.73. As of the date of separation, December 1, 2023, the Home was appraised for $330,000 and the mortgage was $139,946.75. The increase in equity was $105,000.00, attributable to market appreciation.

2. Marital Equity: If the Home is found to be entirely marital, the equity to be divided is $190,053.25.

3. Albanese Equity: If the Home is divided under Albanese, the "marital portion" of the equity to be divided is $34,606.19.

Page 3

4. Retention of the Home: Husband may retain the Home, but if the Court determines Wife has a valid claim against the residence, Husband shall buy-out Wife's interest.

5. Vehicles: The marital Dodge Durango and Dodge Caravan have no value and will be retained by Husband without offset. Husband will retain his non-marital GMC Yukon. Wife will retain her non-marital Buick Enclave.

6. Husband's Retirement/Pension Plan: Husband cashed out his marital pension from Lansdowne Borough and the value to be divided is $16,030.28. Husband to retain his non-marital Vanguard 401(k).

7. Business: Wife will retain her business, JNL Solutions LLC, without offset.

8. Bank Accounts: The parties will retain their own respective bank accounts without offset.

9. Each party shall retain any debt in his or her name without offset, except the Mortgage on ------- -----, which shall be dealt with in the marital home discussion.

10. The household belongings have been divided.

MATTERS IN DISPUTE

1. The Home: The parties disagree as to whether Wife has either an Albanese or marital claim on the Home or no claim on the home. Wife believes that she is entitled to more than solely an Albanese claim and argues that the Home was purchased in contemplation of marriage. Husband believes that the Home was not purchased in contemplation of marriage and that Wife's contributions were so insignificant that she should not be awarded an Albanese claim.

2. Percentage: Husband requests the marital property to be divided 90/10 in his favor. Wife is requesting the marital property be divided 50/50.

3. Income: Both parties disagree with the amount of income each is claiming. Wife believes that Husband earns approximately $72,000 annually, which Husband denies. Husband believes that Wife lies about her income to receive state benefits and is truly earning, or has the potential earning capacity to earn, over $100,000 annually.

LEGAL STANDARD: PROPERTY DIVISION

Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 1513(a), the Family Court of Delaware is to "equitably divide, distribute and assign the marital property."¹Under 13 Del. C. § 1513(b), marital property means

Page 4

all property acquired by either party subsequent to the marriage except certain designated types of property, including "…[t]he increase in property value of property acquired prior to the marriage."² In Albanese v. Albanese, the Delaware Supreme Court "adopted a three-step process for allocating spousal shares in real property purchased and paid for in part before marriage and in part during marriage through the use of nonmarital and marital funds: (1) fix the ratio of the nonmarital interest to the total nonmarital investment; (2) subject the marital portion to equitable distribution; and (3) in making the equitable distribution, determine the monetary and nonmonetary contributions of each spouse, and the effort expended by each spouse in accumulating the marital property."³ Family Court has used various methodologies to determine the marital percentage. This process, followed by the court in Albanese, takes into consideration a party's nonmarital interest, attempts to return them to the position they were in prior to the marriage, and provides them with an equitable portion of the marital investment.⁴The parties agree that using this process, the marital portion would be $34,606.19.

Marital Home and Albanese Analysis

Husband and Wife dispute whether the Home should be distributed as marital property. Wife's position is that the Home should be considered marital property and divided 50/50 between the parties. At a minimum, Wife contends that she should be awarded the marital portion of the increase in the Home's value during the parties' marriage. Husband believes that Wife should not be attributed any increase in the Home's value due to her contributions being insignificant. If Wife were to be attributed with an increase, Husband's position is that the distribution should be 90/10 in his favor.

(a) In a proceeding for divorce or annulment, the Court shall, upon request of either party, equitably divide, distribute and assign the marital property between the parties without regard to marital misconduct, in such proportions as the Court deems just after considering all relevant factors including:

(1) The length of the marriage;

(2) Any prior marriage of the party;

(3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties;

(4) Whether the property award is in lieu of or in addition to alimony;

(5) The opportunity of each for future acquisitions of capital assets and income;

(6) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as homemaker, husband, or wife;

(7) The value of the property set apart to each party;

(8) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the party with whom any children of the marriage will live;

(9) Whether the property was acquired by gift, except those gifts excluded by paragraph (b)(1) of this section;

(10) The debts of the parties; and

(11) Tax consequences.

Page 5

Husband and Wife both testified that the Home was purchased in Husband's name solely approximately 6 years prior to the marriage. Wife claims the Home was purchased in contemplation of marriage, which Husband denies. Husband and Wife agreed that Husband paid for the mortgage and electricity using his own funds. This remained the same before and after marriage. Wife stated she helped with other bills, including water. Wife testified that throughout her and Husband being together, they routinely discussed moving in together and purchasing a home. Wife stated that when looking for a home, Husband was approved on his own, and so their lender, S----- T------, recommended they move forward with just him. Wife said that part of the reason for this was to preserve Wife's "first-time homebuyer" status for the future. This contention was not supported by any other witness. She also said that there were intentions to refinance the Home and put her on the mortgage and deed. Husband said that there were no conversations regarding this. Ms. T------ testified that she communicated with both Husband and Wife during the mortgage process.

Wife said she provided a $500 check toward the down payment on the Home, but the real estate agent, C----- P----- ("Ms. P-----"), indicated that the check bounced and was never processed. Husband eventually purchased the Home in 2014, being the sole name on the deed and mortgage. Ms. P----- also indicated that Husband advised her that he would be purchasing the Home on his own and that she primarily worked with Husband throughout the process. From 2014 through 2019, the parties lived at the Home; however, Wife moved out on multiple occasions. In 2019 Wife left for several months. In 2020, Husband and Wife reconciled and decided to get married. From 2020 until 2023, the parties lived together in the Home until their eventual separation. Husband testified that prior to living in the Home, the parties and their children lived in a two-bedroom apartment. Husband stated that he found the Home online and reached out to Ms. P- ---- about it. Husband never intended to put Wife's name on the Home and stated that he was buying it for himself and for his children to be in a better school feeder pattern. Husband admitted that the parties had conversations about marriage in the past, such as when Wife was pregnant with their kids, but there were no discussions between the parties that they were buying this home in contemplation of marriage, and there was never an engagement ring until well after the purchase. Wife testified that Husband first gave her a ring in 2014 but that he had a better ring on layaway and that he proposed again in 2018. Husband testified that the parties were engaged in 2018. While Wife claimed that she helped with the downpayment on the Home, Husband clarified that his father gave him $1,000 for it.

The Court holds that the home itself will be considered premarital property of Husband. In McNulty v. McNulty, the Court expressed a preference to look at "in contemplation of marriage"

cases on a case-by-case basis, rather than a bright line test. While one factor that the Court looks at is whether Wife looked at the home with Husband, the parties' testimony differed as to the extent of Wife's involvement. Neither party is particularly credible. Husband is so bitter that it taints everything he says and Wife has been shown to be loose with the truth, when it suits her needs. The realtor and mortgage agent both testified that Wife was somewhat involved. However, both were clear that Husband was the purchaser. The Court also looks at other factors in determining whether a home is purchased in contemplation of marriage, It is not enough to simply talk about marriage as a possibility in the future. When the Home was purchased, there was no engagement or wedding date, and Wife was still married to Mr. W---------. In addition, the parties did not

Page 6

officially get married until 2020—six years after the Home was purchased. In McNulty, the parties were married 5 months after the purchase. Additionally, in this case, in the interim, between the home purchase and the marriage date, the parties separated. While Wife argues that Husband was also buying the Home with the intention of providing for their children, this does not equate to a purchase in contemplation of marriage. As Husband testified, he was ensuring that the children were placed in a good school district and wanted to provide for them. Many parents never get married but still reside together and want the best for their children. As such, only the increase in value of the Home while the parties were married will be considered marital, and a portion of that increase shall be awarded to Wife. Both Husband's and Wife's incomes during the marriage are considered marital, and therefore it does not matter to this judge which marital dollar was spent on which marital expense. Both were paying for marital expenses with marital funds. While Husband argues that Wife's contributions were insignificant, the Court does not agree. Wife testified that at times during the marriage she was working three jobs and she still helped with numerous marital expenses, including childcare, and shared household chores and at times watched the parties' children so Husband could work. The Court does not find that Wife had to pay for something that directly relates to the increase in equity to have an Albanese claim. The Wife in Albanese was a homemaker. In this case, Husband and Wife were both breadwinners and both contributed as parents and homemakers. Husband claims that Wife did nothing and that even though he was gone from 5 a.m. until 12 a.m. working two jobs, he was also doing everything at the Home and taking care of the children. The Court does not find Husband's testimony that Wife did nothing to be credible, but rather that his perception is based on his obvious bitterness. The Court finds Wife's testimony on her contributions to be more realistic and credible. Therefore, the analysis set forth in Albanese would apply. Husband and Wife agreed that if there was an Albanese claim, the amount to be divided would be $34,606.19. This portion shall be subjected to equitable distribution pursuant to the factors.

PROPERTY DIVISION: 13 Del. C. 1513(a) FACTORS

Wife is requesting a 50/50 division of the marital property. Husband is requesting a 90/10 division of the marital property in his favor. The parties agreed on the values of the marital property, but do not agree on how it should be divided.

In determining how to divide the parties' marital property, the Court considers the following factors which are enumerated in 13 Del. C. § 1513(a).

Page 7

(1) The length of the marriage;

The parties were married on November 7, 2020, separated on December 1, 2023, and were officially divorced by Final Decree of the Court on November 25, 2024.⁵The parties were married for approximately four (4) years and 18 days.

(2) Any prior marriage of the party;

Husband testified that he has had no prior marriages; however, Wife had a prior marriage. Wife married H----- W--------- ("Mr. W---------") in January 2009 in Texas. She and Mr. W-------

-- had a child together, N-----, and Wife indicated that she would like to move back to Pennsylvania. While living in Pennsylvania, Wife and Mr. W--------- lived together until she moved out of Mr. W---------'s apartment in May 2011. Wife admitted that she met Husband while she was still married to Mr. W---------. In January 2013, Wife filed for divorce in Pennsylvania, and Mr. W--------- moved back to Texas. Once Mr. W--------- moved back to Texas, he and Wife only contacted one another a few times throughout the year.

To Husband's knowledge, Wife's divorce was finalized in Pennsylvania before they began a relationship and eventually married. Husband claimed he checked the Texas court docket to see if the divorce was ever finalized; however, he never checked the Pennsylvania docket, even though he was notified that she was seeking a divorce there. Husband admitted that he was not certain that Wife was still married to Mr. W--------- until he saw a Pennsylvania court docket showing that the divorce was never finalized.⁶Husband only saw this docket when preparing for the instant ancillary hearing. Wife believed she was divorced from Mr. W---------, although the Pennsylvania court docket does not show a final divorce decree was entered. Thus, Wife appears to still be married to Mr. W---------. Husband has filed to Reopen the divorce to convert it to an annulment which would not impact equitable distribution as the statute allows for ancillary relief, including property division and alimony in divorce and annulment proceedings. The Court will issue a separate Order on the Motion to Reopen. Wife has no obligations to Mr. W--------- and Mr. W---

------ has no involvement with their child.

There was no dispute that Husband and Wife had a marriage ceremony in Pennsylvania and obtained a marriage certificate in Maryland.

(3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties;

At the time of the hearing, Wife was thirty-seven (37) years old, and Husband was fifty- two (52) years old. Wife stated that in 2021 she was diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri which limited the amount of time she could work. Wife said that she is not experiencing any symptoms at this time and is not participating in treatment. Wife testified that she obtained her real estate license in 2016 and works part-time as a real estate agent. Wife said that her income fluctuates in

Page 8

real estate based on the number of closings she has. Wife was employed as an optician at ------'s - ------ in 2024 and made approximately $40,000 annually. Wife testified that her 2024 tax return indicated she made approximately $80,000 across all jobs.⁷Based on her previous earning capacity and reported earnings in 2024, the Court will impute Wife with an annual income of $80,000. In addition, Wife said that she received SNAP and Medicaid benefits in 2025. Husband stated that Wife has continuously lied about her income to receive benefits. The Court notes that Husband enjoyed the fruits of these benefits for years when the parties were an intact couple and never complained about it during their relationship. Additionally, Husband is not the Father of Wife's eldest daughter. Husband also believes that Wife has a much higher earning capacity than she is claiming due to her working multiple jobs and her various real estate ventures. As noted above, the Court does attribute Wife than greater earnings than she is claiming in the amount of $80,000.00. Also, as discussed below, Husband has not been entirely honest about his income either.

Husband testified that he is a sanitation worker at -------- --------. Husband makes approximately $25 per hour at his regular rate and earns overtime at a different hourly rate for working on holidays. In the submitted pre-trial stipulation, Husband claimed he only makes $39,200 annually and then testified that he makes approximately $42,000 annually. However, Husband's June 2025 pay stub indicated that his year-to-date earnings equaled $32,649.⁸In addition, Husband's 2024 tax filing indicated that his income was approximately $58,000.⁹ Husband only provided these two documentations to prove his income. Taking Husband's year to date earnings of $32,649 in June and adjusting it to reflect an annual salary, would reflect an annual income of $65,298. Based on this information, the Court will impute Husband with an annual income of $65,298.

Both parties are able bodied and will work for a significant period before retirement. Neither party has any health concerns that prevent them from working.

(4) Whether the property award is in lieu of or in addition to alimony;

Neither party is seeking alimony.

(5) The opportunity of each for future acquisitions of capital assets and income;

Husband believes that Wife has a higher earning capacity than she is claiming and should be attributed with that. Wife's imputed income is somewhat higher than Husband's. However, Husband's income is more dependable and less variable and Husband has employment benefits which Wife does not have as an essentially self-employed person.

(6) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as homemaker, husband, or wife;

Page 9

As discussed more extensively above in the Albanese analysis, both parties contributed to the marital estate as breadwinners, homemakers and caretakers of the parties' children.

(7) The value of the property set apart to each party;

See the attached Wright chart for the value set apart to each party. The Court also notes that Husband has significantly more non-marital property than Wife as he is retaining the vast majority of the equity in the marital home. Wife will receive only a share of the Albanese amount while Husband will retain equity of $160,000.00-$172,000.00 as his sole property.

(8) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for reasonable periods to the party with whom any children of the marriage will live;

The parties agree that should Wife have any valid claim against the Home, Husband would retain it and buy out Wife's interest.

(9) Whether the property was acquired by gift, except those gifts excluded by paragraph (b)(1) of this section;

Neither party presented evidence that any marital property was acquired by gift.

(10) The debts of the parties;

The only debt listed by the parties was the mortgage on the Home. Since the parties agreed that Husband would retain the Home, he will retain the mortgage.

(11) Tax consequences;

Neither of the parties presented any information regarding tax consequences arising from the division of the marital property. Since Husband cashed out his pension, there are no tax deferred retirement assets.

PROPERTY DIVISION: 13 Del. C. § 1513(a) ANALYSIS

Based on a review of the factors and the parties' agreement, the Court finds that a 50/50 division of the marital estate, including the Albanese share of the increase in value of the Home is equitable. While the Court attributed Wife with a higher earing capacity than Husband, Husband has more significant separate property and has more stability in his income. Both parties contributed equally in different ways and though the marriage was short the relationship was long- standing.