Shaw v. McDonald

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHLOE SHAW,1 §
§ No. 236, 2024
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CN18-05071
RUSSELL MCDONALD, § Petition No. 22-12436
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: November 22, 2024
Decided: January 27, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

(1) After careful consideration of the opening brief and the record on

appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the

Family Court’s order dated June 12, 2024. The appellant challenges the Family

Court’s factual findings regarding the parties’ income and expenses. On appeal from

a Family Court order entered after a hearing, this Court accepts the trial court’s

factual findings if they are sufficiently supported by the record and are the product

of an orderly and logical deductive process.2 This Court will make contradictory

findings only when the trial court’s factual findings are clearly wrong and justice

1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2
Garrison v. Downing, 226 A.3d 195, 197 (Del. 2020).
requires that they be overturned.3 Moreover, when the determination of facts turns

on a question of credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of the

witnesses appearing before the trier of fact, this Court will not substitute its own

opinion for that of the trier of fact.4

(2) The appellant has not supplied a transcript of the April 3, 2024 hearing,

which limits our ability to evaluate the merits of her claims of error.5 She argues

that the Family Court erroneously found that the appellee’s income was $65,000 per

year, when the appellee testified that he earns approximately $80,000 per year.

Although the text of the Family Court’s letter decision states that the appellee

testified at trial that he “makes approximately $65,000,” the report from the Family

Court software that is appended to the court’s decision reflects that the court’s

conclusions as to the parties’ respective need and ability to pay were calculated based

on an annual income of more than $80,000 for the appellee.6 We do not find the

Family Court’s factual findings to be clearly wrong, and we find no basis for

reversing the Family Court’s order.

3
Langford v. Langford, 2019 WL 719039, at *1 (Del. Feb. 19, 2019).
4
Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).
5
See Davis v. Anderson, 2011 WL 4838956, at *1 (Del. Oct. 12, 2011) (“In the absence of any
transcript of the ancillary hearing, which [the appellant] had the burden to supply, this Court is
without any adequate basis to review [the appellant’s] suggestion of error.” (citation omitted)).
6
See Family Court Software Budget Report for 2024 (making calculations based on husband’s
monthly income of $6,777.33, which totals $81,327.96 over a twelve-month period).

2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
Justice

3