Attorney David A Boswell's Legal Cases

Trusts

Kulp v. Timmons, 944 A.2d 1023 (Del. Ch. 2002)

Jul 30, 2002

OUTCOME: Trust busted; Verdict for Plaintiff, plus award of attorneys' fees and costs; ultimate recovery of about $500,000

A plaintiff had an old workers' compensation award that other lawyers declined as uncollectable, because the employers, a family partnership, put all of their assets into trust six months before the pl ... aintiff's injury. Mr. Boswell persuaded the Court of Chancery to bust the trust as a fraud on creditors, and as a violation of the spendthrift trust statute, among other grounds. Mr. Boswell obtained an equitable bill of execution on the trust real property. When the last surviving employer filed bankruptcy, Mr. Boswell secured an order from the bankruptcy court to auction off the employer's land. The plaintiff ultimately collected about a half million dollars, 100% of the Board's awards plus interest and attorneys' fees.

Civil rights

Holland v. Zarif, 794 A.2d 1254 (Del. Ch. 2002)

Jan 04, 2002

OUTCOME: Finding for Plaintiff

This Chancery Court decision halted the Delaware Department of Labor's practice of using clerical or intake staff to mislead the public regarding the quantum of evidence necessary to support an adminis ... trative charge of employment discrimination or otherwise refusing to accept such charges, and thereby halted the Department's former practice of systematically disenfranchising some 25% of prospective employment discrimination plaintiffs in Delaware of their civil rights.

Employment and labor

Brice v. State, Dep't of Correction, 704 A.2d 1176 (Del. 1998) (en Banc)

Jan 22, 1998

OUTCOME: Finding for Plaintiff; prior hiring decision set aside for nepotism; award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiff

Correctional officer with an extensive background in both corrections and mechanics applied for a job at the Ferris School for Boys, involving supervision of juvenile offenders in the repair of State v ... ehicles. The Department of Correction held a 2-tiered qualification process, and found that the Plaintiff did not make the final 3. Those who did included an applicant who was awarded the job, who had no corrections experience and flunked the mechanics knowledge test, but was the nephew of the chair of the interview panel; an applicant who did worse than the Plaintiff on the mechanics knowledge test, but did have correctional experience; and a youth who had primarily worked as a lifeguard at the Hamlet and running parts as a temporary/casual/seasonal employee, who was mainly distinguished by a former romantic involvement with the Bureau Chief's daughter, and his receipt of the highest score on of all applicants on the mechanics knowledge test. In a hearing before the Merit Employee Relations Board (MERB), Mr. Boswell showed that the selection process was corrupted by nepotism, and elicited an admission from a State witness who worked with the youth that the youth had little mechanical knowledge, and was believed to have obtained a copy of the mechanical knowledge test before it was administered. The State's selection process was thrown out by the Board. Mr. Boswell moved for the claimant's attorneys' fees for the State's bad-faith conduct both in conducting a corrupt selection process, and in defending that process in bad faith through 3 hearing dates before the Board. However, the Board found it had no legal authority to award attorneys' fees. On Mr. Boswell's appeal of the denial of attorneys' fees, the Delaware Supreme Court found the Board does have authority to award attorneys' fees for bad faith in order to make an employee whole, and that the facts of the case were appropriate for exercise of that authority. See "Bias case winner recoups legal costs: State worker gets $15,000," The News Journal, at B1 2/7/1998.

Personal injury

Williams v. Chait, C.A. No. 91C-08-005 (Del. Super.)

Oct 10, 1996

OUTCOME: Plaintiff's Verdict: $132,000, consisting of $82,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages

Mr. Boswell represented the plaintiff, the victim in a pattern of stalking and harassment that culminated in an arson attempt, in a Kent County jury trial.

Divorce and separation

Albanese v. Albanese, No. 113, 1995 (Del. Supr.)

Feb 08, 1996

OUTCOME: Landmark decision holding that use of marital income to pay down mortgage resulted in marital interest in husband's pre-marital home, and that wife was entitled to share of pro-rata marital contribution towards home equity

Mr. Boswell represented the wife in this landmark property division case. The husband purchased a home before the marriage. The wife was a homemaker who bore and raised 4 children over 11 years of m ... arriage. Husband's sole income paid down the mortgage on the pre-marital home throughout the marriage. The Family Court found that the home belonged solely to the husband, and that wife left the marriage with no assets, and actually owed the husband a few thousand dollars towards marital credit card bills. Mr. Boswell appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, which reversed.

Family

Albanese v. Albanese

Feb 08, 1996

OUTCOME: Delaware Supreme Court decision finding that a woman who worked as a homemaker and who bore 4 children during marriage is entitled to share in marital property acquired with husband's income.

David took on his first domestic law case through Delaware Volunteer Legal Services. It involved a divorce and property division proceedings. The husband had purchased a home before the marriage, and ... kept title in his sole name. The wife had bourne four children during over 11 years of marriage, and was a homemaker, caring for their children. A substantial portion of Husband's pay during the marriage went to pay the mortgage on the premarital home. Husband contended that the this home, which was the only valuable asset between them, was his sole property, acquired before the marriage, maintained in his sole name, and paid by his sole income. David contended that the Husband's income during the marriage was not his sole income, but was marital income which belonged to both spouses, and that the monthly mortgage payments "acquired" additional equity in the home, which was therefore a marital asset subject to division. The Family Court ruled in Husband's favor, finding that the title to real estate could not be changed in domestic proceedings. David conceived of the matter as a civil rights case, disenfranchising women. He appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, which reversed the Family Court, and found in the wife's favor, that the equity acquired during the marriage was a martial asset subject to division by the Family Court. This case fundamentally changed the trajectory of property division cases in domestic cases, and struck a major blow for women's rights in Delaware.

David A Boswell's Legal Cases (16)

Kulp v. Timmons, 944 A.2d 1023 (Del. Ch. 2002)

Holland v. Zarif, 794 A.2d 1254 (Del. Ch. 2002)

Brice v. State, Dep't of Correction, 704 A.2d 1176 (Del. 1998) (en Banc)

Williams v. Chait, C.A. No. 91C-08-005 (Del. Super.)

Albanese v. Albanese, No. 113, 1995 (Del. Supr.)

Albanese v. Albanese