The Delaware Supreme Court reversed a Family Court decision that improperly set aside a separation agreement between divorced spouses without holding an evidentiary hearing, ruling Jan. 20 in *Dorsey v. Milner*.
The state's highest court found that the Family Court erred when it granted Daphne Milner's motion to void a separation agreement with her ex-husband Ralph Dorsey without conducting a proper evidentiary hearing. The court remanded the matter for further proceedings.
"After careful review, we conclude that the Family Court erred when it granted Ex-Wife's motion to set aside a separation agreement purportedly agreed to by the parties without holding an evidentiary hearing," the Delaware Supreme Court wrote in its order.
The case stems from a divorce petition filed in April 2022 by Dorsey, who sought to incorporate a "reconciliation" agreement dated April 15, 2019, and Feb. 2, 2020, into the divorce decree. The parties had married in May 2012.
Dorsey, represented by counsel, petitioned for divorce but did not ask the Family Court to retain jurisdiction over ancillary matters. He specifically requested that the court incorporate the separation agreement into the divorce decree.
Notice of the divorce petition was sent to Milner's last known address at her mother's home in New Jersey and was posted on the Family Court's website. When Milner failed to answer the petition, Dorsey requested that the court grant the divorce without a hearing.
The Family Court granted the divorce petition and entered a decree on Aug. 30, 2022. However, the decree did not incorporate the separation agreement as Dorsey had requested, leaving the ancillary issues unresolved.
The Delaware Supreme Court's decision highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in family law proceedings, particularly when one party seeks to void a separation agreement. The court's ruling emphasizes that Family Courts must conduct evidentiary hearings before setting aside such agreements, ensuring that both parties have an opportunity to present evidence and testimony regarding the validity and enforceability of their agreement.
The case underscores the complexity of divorce proceedings when parties attempt to incorporate pre-existing agreements into their divorce decrees. Separation agreements often address critical issues such as property division, spousal support, and custody arrangements, making their enforceability a matter of significant legal and financial consequence.
The Supreme Court's decision to remand the case signals that the Family Court must now conduct a proper evidentiary hearing to determine whether the separation agreement should be set aside. During such proceedings, the court will likely examine factors such as whether the agreement was entered into voluntarily, whether both parties had adequate legal representation, and whether the terms were fair and reasonable at the time of execution.
Family law practitioners note that this decision reinforces established procedural requirements for challenging separation agreements. Courts cannot simply void such agreements based on motions alone but must provide due process through evidentiary hearings where parties can present witnesses, documents, and other evidence supporting their positions.
The ruling also demonstrates the importance of proper notice procedures in divorce cases. The fact that notice was sent to Milner's last known address and posted on the court's website suggests the Family Court followed appropriate protocols for service of process, even though Milner failed to respond to the initial petition.
The Delaware Supreme Court's three-justice panel, consisting of Chief Justice Seitz and Justices Valihura and Griffiths, issued the decision after considering the parties' briefs and reviewing the Family Court record. The case was submitted for consideration on Oct. 24, 2025.
The decision serves as a reminder to family law practitioners and litigants that procedural requirements in divorce proceedings must be strictly followed, particularly when significant financial or custody issues are at stake. The requirement for evidentiary hearings before setting aside separation agreements protects both parties' due process rights and ensures that courts make informed decisions based on complete factual records.
As the case returns to the Family Court for further proceedings, both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the separation agreement and whether it should remain in effect. The outcome of those proceedings will ultimately determine the resolution of the ancillary issues left unresolved by the original divorce decree.
The case represents a typical example of the procedural complexities that can arise in divorce proceedings when parties have pre-existing agreements that they seek to incorporate into their divorce decrees, highlighting the need for careful attention to procedural requirements throughout the litigation process.