Background
Ryan Arnold appealed from a Delaware Family Court judgment in a proceeding involving Jackie Arnold. The Delaware Supreme Court had previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
The Family Court’s judgment rested on decisions and orders dated July 29, August 22, November 7, and December 2, 2025. After Arnold appealed, the appellee moved for attorneys’ fees on the ground that the appeal was frivolous.
The Court’s Holding
In a per curiam order, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s judgment on the basis of the Family Court’s four decisions and orders. The Supreme Court did not separately elaborate on the merits of the underlying dispute.
The court denied the appellee’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Although Delaware Supreme Court Rule 20(f) permits an award of costs and reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, in a frivolous appeal, the court concluded after reviewing the appellant’s arguments and the record that this appeal was not frivolous.
Key Takeaways
- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s judgment based on the lower court’s decisions and orders.
- An unsuccessful appeal is not necessarily frivolous.
- Because the appeal was not frivolous, the appellee was not entitled to attorneys’ fees under Rule 20(f).
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the distinction between losing an appeal and pursuing a frivolous one. Even when an appellate court summarily affirms the judgment below, fee shifting under Rule 20(f) requires a separate determination that the appeal was frivolous.