Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A married couple, after more than two decades together and raising two children, underwent a contentious divorce. The wife filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences, and the husband responded with a counterclaim on similar grounds. During the proceedings, the parties reached a marital settlement agreement that resolved most issues but left unresolved whether certain foreign assets inherited or gifted to the wife were part of the marital estate, and whether the wife was entitled to attorneys’ fees due to the husband’s conduct during litigation.After a trial in the Providence County Family Court, a magistrate determined that the foreign assets were nonmarital property, as there was no evidence they had been transmuted into marital assets. The magistrate found these assets remained segregated, had not been maintained with marital funds, and the husband’s contributions toward them were minimal and gratuitous. On the issue of attorneys’ fees, the magistrate concluded that the husband had prolonged litigation with repeated, meritless arguments and filings, violating both Rule 11 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure and Rhode Island General Laws § 9-29-21. As a result, the wife was awarded $74,680 in attorneys’ fees. The magistrate also addressed the division of the 2022 tax refund and health insurance costs, ordering an equal split of the tax return and insurance premiums, despite the inclusion of adult children on the policy.The husband appealed the magistrate’s rulings to a justice of the Family Court, who upheld both the classification of assets and the attorneys’ fees award, finding no abuse of discretion or error in law. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the matter and affirmed the Family Court’s decision in all respects, holding that the foreign assets remained nonmarital, the equal division of the tax return and health insurance costs was proper, and the attorneys’ fees award was appropriate based on the husband’s conduct. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Constantino v. Orban" on Justia Law

A married couple divorced in 2010 and entered into a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA), which provided that the husband would transfer one-half of his fully vested retirement plan through his employer or union to the wife by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The retirement plan consisted of both an annuity and a pension. At the time of divorce, a QDRO was entered to divide the annuity, but not the pension. The husband began receiving pension benefits in June 2015, but did not pay the wife any share. In December 2023, the wife filed a motion in Family Court to reopen the divorce and to enter a QDRO dividing the pension.The general magistrate in the Rhode Island Family Court found the wife’s action timely under the ten-year statute of limitations, holding that her cause of action accrued when the husband began receiving pension benefits and failed to pay her share. The magistrate found the PSA unambiguous, requiring equal division of the retirement plan, and ordered entry of a QDRO for the pension, payment of past-due amounts, and ongoing payments. The husband appealed to the Chief Judge of the Family Court, who affirmed the magistrate's decision, agreeing that the statute of limitations began running at the time of the breach in 2015.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Family Court's order. The Supreme Court held that the PSA was unambiguous in requiring equal division of the retirement plan, including both the annuity and the pension. The Court held that the statute of limitations began when the husband first received pension payments and failed to pay the wife her share, making her motion timely. The Court further held that ordering a QDRO for the pension did not reform or modify the PSA, but simply enforced its terms. View "Codere-Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A married couple separated in 2012, with the husband moving out of the marital home and into another state. In February 2020, the wife filed for divorce in Rhode Island on the grounds of living separate and apart for over three years. Neither party was represented by counsel, and the husband did not file an answer or counterclaim. Both appeared remotely for a nominal divorce hearing in June 2020, where the court found the marriage irretrievably broken, the parties self-sufficient, and no joint property or debts to divide. A Decision Pending Entry of Final Judgment (DPEFJ) and a final judgment were both entered on October 8, 2020. After the divorce, the wife purchased a lottery ticket and won $4 million.The husband subsequently moved to vacate the final judgment in the Providence County Family Court, arguing that the lottery ticket was purchased before the divorce was final, making it a marital asset. He also claimed procedural defects, specifically that the final judgment and DPEFJ were entered simultaneously, violating the statutory requirement of a 20-day waiting period. The general magistrate found the judgment was entered prematurely but not void, yet granted relief due to procedural irregularities and continued the matter to address potential distribution of the lottery winnings. The wife appealed, arguing that the magistrate exceeded his authority and that any error was at most procedural.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether the divorce judgment was void and subject to vacatur. The Court held that the Family Court had subject-matter jurisdiction and that the simultaneous entry of the DPEFJ and final judgment was a procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect. The Court further found no due process violation or prejudice to the husband and concluded the lottery winnings were not marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s denial of the motion to vacate the final judgment. View "Varela v. Monteiro" on Justia Law

A petitioner sought temporary custody of her nephew, a Guatemalan-born minor, after he entered the United States and was released to her care by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The petitioner, the child's maternal aunt, resided with him in Central Falls, Rhode Island. She was granted guardianship by the Central Falls Probate Court and then filed a petition with the Rhode Island Family Court for temporary custody and special findings of fact, which were necessary for her nephew’s Special Juvenile Immigration petition. The petition was filed before the child’s eighteenth birthday but was not heard until after he turned eighteen. The biological parents consented to the proceedings and did not oppose the petition.The case was first considered by a magistrate of the Family Court, who, after noting that the child had turned eighteen before the hearing, determined that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because its statutory authority extended only to persons under eighteen. The magistrate dismissed the petition and found that the court could not issue an order nunc pro tunc to the petition’s filing date. On appeal to the Chief Judge of the Family Court, the decision was upheld, with the Chief Judge concurring that the court lacked jurisdiction once the child was no longer a minor under Rhode Island law.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the appeal. The Court held that, under the statutory framework in effect at the time of the hearing, the Family Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because the individual was no longer under eighteen years of age. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s arguments for nunc pro tunc relief and for retroactive application of a subsequent statutory amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s dismissal of the petition. View "In re DDH" on Justia Law

The parties in this case, who were never married but cohabitated and share two minor children, separated in early 2023 after their relationship deteriorated. The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Kent County Family Court seeking joint custody, primary placement of the children, and child support. Shortly after, the defendant filed a separate complaint alleging abuse, resulting in an ex parte temporary protection order and temporary custody for her. Over the following year, the Family Court issued various orders, including appointing a guardian ad litem, scheduling mediation, amending visitation, and addressing discovery issues related to the plaintiff’s income.After several hearings, the Family Court entered four orders on June 25, 2024. These included a visitation order (not challenged on appeal), an order granting primary placement of the children to the defendant, a child-support guideline worksheet setting the plaintiff’s monthly obligation at $1,254, and a handwritten order memorializing child-support details and other arrangements. The plaintiff objected, contending that there was no agreement or sufficient opportunity to present evidence, and that the best interests of the children were not properly considered.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. It found that the Family Court did not make adequate factual findings regarding the children’s best interests to support the order granting primary placement to the defendant, as required by established precedent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the disputed portion of the placement order. However, the Court affirmed the child-support guideline worksheet, determining that the plaintiff was bound by his attorney’s actions in signing the worksheet and that no special circumstances warranted overturning it. As the same support amount was memorialized in the handwritten order, the plaintiff’s appeal of that order was deemed moot. The case was remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings. View "Conway v. Orenberg" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a domestic-abuse complaint in Rhode Island District Court, alleging that the defendant forced her to engage in sexual relations by force or duress. An ex parte temporary protective order was issued, prohibiting contact and requiring the defendant to surrender firearms. Following a hearing, the District Court granted a final order of protection for three years, continuing the firearm restrictions under relevant Rhode Island statutes.The defendant appealed to the Kent County Superior Court, which held a de novo bench trial. At trial, the judge stated he would apply a clear and convincing evidence standard, rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard typically used in civil cases, due to the temporary deprivation of the defendant’s firearm rights. The judge concluded that the plaintiff did not meet this higher burden of proof, found the defendant’s evidence more credible, and dismissed the complaint, dissolving the protective order. The plaintiff then appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, focusing solely on the appropriate burden of proof for civil protective orders involving temporary restrictions of firearm rights. The Court held that the preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard in such proceedings, notwithstanding the Second Amendment implications or statutory provisions regarding firearm surrender. The Court found no legislative intent to require a higher standard, and emphasized that temporary restrictions do not amount to a significant deprivation of liberty requiring heightened proof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded for a new hearing under the preponderance of the evidence standard. View "Andrew v. Adorno" on Justia Law

Sharon and Kieran Cunningham were married in 1994 and divorced in 2021. They entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that was incorporated but not merged into the final divorce decree. The MSA included provisions about the use and sale of their home in Middletown, Rhode Island, which were modified twice by mutual agreement. In January 2024, Kieran's counsel offered to purchase the home, leading to a dispute over whether the Family Court could modify the MSA to allow an appraisal of the property.Kieran filed a motion in the Family Court to have the home appraised, which Sharon opposed, arguing that the MSA did not provide for such an appraisal. Kieran amended his motion to request an inspection and appraisal, citing Rule 34 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure. The Family Court held a hearing and ultimately ruled that Kieran had no right to purchase the property under the MSA and sanctioned him for filing an improper motion, awarding Sharon $6,125 in attorneys' fees.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The Court held that Kieran's motion was not well-grounded in fact or law and that he sought relief not permitted by the MSA. The Court found that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees, as the fees were reasonable and supported by an affidavit from a Rhode Island Bar member. The Supreme Court concluded that the sanctions and attorneys' fees were appropriate given the circumstances. View "Cunningham v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Robert and Etleva Stratoberdha, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against Clements Properties, LLC, Robert P. Rucando, and officials from the Town of Portsmouth. They alleged that Clements Properties caused continuous trespass by creating an illegal drainage structure, Rucando failed to disclose flooding issues when selling the property, and the Town neglected to enforce ordinances. During the prolonged litigation, Etleva filed for divorce, and the Family Court issued orders related to the sale of the marital home and the settlement of the Superior Court action.The Family Court appointed a Commissioner to sell the marital home and authorized her to settle the Superior Court action. Robert did not appeal these orders. The Family Court later approved a settlement agreement where Clements Properties would buy the marital home for $870,000, and the Town would pay $75,000 in damages. The Family Court's orders and the settlement agreement were incorporated into the interlocutory decision pending entry of final judgment in the divorce case. Robert's appeal of this decision was dismissed as untimely.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order approving the settlement agreement. The Court held that the Family Court's orders were final and could not be challenged in the Superior Court. The Superior Court's approval of the settlement agreement was a ministerial act based on the Family Court's final decrees. The Court found no merit in Robert's arguments and concluded that the Superior Court properly relied on the Family Court's orders. View "Stratoberdhav. Clements Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the termination of parental rights of K.M. and E.R., Sr. to their four eldest children, J.R., E.R., A.R., and D.R. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) became involved after the fourth child tested positive for cocaine at birth in March 2016. All four children were removed from the home and never returned. The parents were referred to various programs and services, but they showed minimal progress and compliance, leading to the filing of termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions in August 2017. Despite some progress in later years, including reunification with their two youngest children through the Safe and Secure Baby Court (SSBC), the parents never progressed to unsupervised or overnight visits with the four eldest children.The Family Court terminated the parental rights of K.M. and E.R., Sr. after a trial that spanned several weeks and included testimony from multiple witnesses. The trial justice found that the parents were unfit, that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The parents appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in these findings and in admitting the guardian ad litem (GAL) report.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decrees. The Court found that the trial justice's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the parents' lack of compliance with service plans and the children's need for a permanent home. The Court also held that the admission of the GAL report, although hearsay, was harmless error given the overall evidence supporting the termination. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the children's best interests and the significant progress the parents had made, but ultimately upheld the termination of parental rights. View "In re J.R.; In re E.R.; In re A.R.; In re D.R" on Justia Law

Matthew O. appealed the Family Court's decision to terminate his parental rights to his two sons, N.O. and K.O. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) initially became involved with the family due to the mother's drug use. N.O. was placed in foster care, and K.O., born later, was also placed in the same foster home due to his developmental disability. Matthew worked towards reunification but faced challenges, including his mental health issues and cognitive limitations.The Family Court initially denied DCYF's first petition to terminate Matthew's parental rights, finding that DCYF had not made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children. However, DCYF filed a second petition, and after a trial, the Family Court granted the petition, concluding that Matthew was unfit to parent due to his cognitive limitations and poor judgment, and that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to provide him with services aimed at reunification.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify Matthew with his children by providing tailored services and support. Despite these efforts, Matthew was unable to make sufficient progress in improving his parenting abilities. The Court also noted that Matthew's refusal to consistently engage in mental health treatment was a significant barrier to reunification. The Supreme Court concluded that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Matthew's parental rights, as they were thriving in their foster home and needed permanency. View "In re N.O." on Justia Law