The Delaware Supreme Court delivered a mixed ruling Monday in a complex divorce case involving allegations that an ex-husband dissipated $515,000 in marital assets, affirming some portions of the Family Court's decision while reversing others and remanding the case for further proceedings.
In *Winston v. Winston*, decided Jan. 27, 2026, the high court reviewed an appeal filed by Audrey Winston challenging multiple aspects of her divorce settlement with ex-husband Kevin Winston. The case, which originated in Delaware Family Court, centered on disputes over asset distribution, income attribution, and attorney fee responsibility following the couple's divorce after nearly three decades of marriage.
The Winstons were married on April 15, 1989, and physically separated on April 17, 2018, though they continued to commingle their finances after separation. Audrey Winston filed for divorce on Jan. 8, 2021, and the divorce was finalized on March 9, 2021, with the Family Court retaining jurisdiction over property division, alimony, court costs, and attorneys' fees.
Central to the dispute was the couple's ownership and operation of a Delaware garage door company during their marriage. Kevin Winston served as president and held 100% equity ownership of the business, while Audrey Winston worked for the company. The couple sold the business in 2015 for an initial payment of $550,000, followed by quarterly payments of approximately $25,300 over five years.
Audrey Winston's appeal challenged three key determinations made by the Family Court. First, she contested the court's finding that Kevin Winston did not dissipate $515,000 of marital assets. The dissipation claim represents a significant portion of the couple's marital estate and suggests complex financial transactions occurred during the dissolution process.
Second, the appellant argued that the Family Court erred by attributing too much income to her in its calculations. Income attribution is a critical component in divorce proceedings, as it affects determinations of alimony, support obligations, and the overall distribution of marital assets. The specific amount of income attributed to Audrey Winston and the methodology used by the Family Court was not detailed in the available court documents.
Third, Audrey Winston challenged the Family Court's decision to shift some of Kevin Winston's attorneys' fees to her. Attorney fee shifting in divorce cases typically occurs when courts find that one party's conduct unnecessarily increased litigation costs or when there are significant disparities in the parties' financial resources.
The Delaware Supreme Court's decision to affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand suggests that the justices found merit in some of Audrey Winston's arguments while upholding other aspects of the Family Court's rulings. The mixed nature of the decision indicates the complexity of the financial issues involved in the case.
Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz presided over the three-justice panel that included Justices Gary F. Traynor and Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves. The case was submitted to the court on Nov. 21, 2025, and decided approximately two months later.
The court's order to remand the case for further proceedings means that the Family Court will need to reconsider certain aspects of its original ruling in light of the Supreme Court's guidance. This could result in modifications to the asset distribution, income calculations, or attorney fee arrangements.
The case highlights the complexities that can arise in high-asset divorces, particularly when business interests are involved. The sale of the garage door company and the subsequent financial arrangements between the parties created a foundation for disputes over asset dissipation and proper valuation of marital property.
Dissipation claims in divorce proceedings require courts to examine whether one spouse improperly spent, transferred, or otherwise disposed of marital assets to the detriment of the other spouse. The $515,000 figure represents a substantial allegation that suggests significant financial activity occurred that Audrey Winston believed was improper.
The Delaware Supreme Court's use of pseudonyms in the case, as authorized under Supreme Court Rule 7(d), reflects the court's recognition of privacy concerns in family law matters while still allowing for public access to important legal precedents.
This decision adds to Delaware's body of family law jurisprudence regarding asset dissipation, income attribution, and attorney fee shifting in divorce cases. The state's Family Court system regularly handles complex financial disputes in marital dissolution proceedings, and appellate guidance helps establish standards for trial courts to follow in similar cases.
The remand order means the case will return to the Family Court system, where proceedings will continue under the Delaware Supreme Court's direction. The ultimate resolution of the financial disputes between the Winstons will depend on how the Family Court applies the high court's guidance to the specific facts and circumstances of their case.