Andrew D. Christie

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of three family trusts created by the William H. Donner family, specifically whether the terms "issue" and "lineal descendants" include illegitimate children of a beneficiary, Donner Hanson. Wilmington Trust Company, as trustee, sought instructions from the Court of Chancery on whether Hanson's acknowledged and unacknowledged illegitimate children qualify as beneficiaries. The Court of Chancery granted summary judgment in favor of including illegitimates who can prove paternity, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this decision. The court relied on the precedent in Haskell v. Wilmington Trust Co. and Delaware statutes allowing illegitimates to inherit upon proof of paternity, applying similar principles under Quebec law for one trust.

family lawproperty

The case involved James L. Blount, Jr.'s convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and possession of a deadly weapon during a felony, stemming from the 1983 shooting death of Reverend Perry O. Hill in a Wilmington park, with no eyewitnesses but circumstantial evidence including the murder weapon found at Blount's residence. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed challenges to the search warrant's probable cause and timeliness (issued ten days after the crime), omissions in the supporting affidavit, the exclusion of death-penalty opponents from the guilt-phase jury, compliance with voir dire requirements under 11 Del. C. § 3301, and a cross-appeal regarding the necessity of a 'proof positive' bail hearing in capital cases. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the affidavit provided sufficient facts for probable cause to search for the weapon and clothing, that any omissions were immaterial, that the jury selection process did not violate constitutional cross-section requirements or statutory voir dire rules, and that no reversible error occurred in the trial court's rulings. On the cross-appeal, the court reversed the lower court's determination, ruling that Superior Court had no obligation to conduct a proof-positive hearing when the prosecution did not oppose bail.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Gray v. Gray, a wife divorced after a 24-year marriage appealed the Family Court's award of temporary, decreasing alimony for six years and its denial of indefinite alimony plus attorney's fees under 13 Del. C. §§ 1512 and 1515. The wife, who had limited education and earning capacity of about $9,500 annually, was found partially dependent on her higher-earning former husband, whose income exceeded $40,000 with substantial benefits, while the parties had divided marital property nearly evenly aside from the husband's pension. The Family Court based its award on encouraging the wife's self-sufficiency over time, applying statutory factors including the marriage duration, her age and condition, and the husband's ability to pay. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court applied a broad standard of review to the facts, law, and inferences, assessing whether the temporary award met the criteria for a dependent spouse after a long marriage versus an indefinite award subject to modification.

family law

The case involved Diamond State Telephone Company seeking approval from the Public Service Commission to issue 400,000 shares of common stock to its parent for $10 million to retire debt and fund expansion, rather than borrowing in a risky market. The Commission disapproved the issuance, finding it not consistent with the public interest because issuing dividend-paying stock could lead to future rate increases, unlike tax-deductible interest on debt. The court reversed the Commission's order, holding that the Commission exceeded its authority under 26 Del. § 215(c) by attempting to indirectly control the company's capital structure and fiscal policies, which is not within its powers to prevent improper issuances or inadequate consideration.

business & regulatory