Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a trial, the family court terminated the parental rights of Respondent to her three children. The court found that Respondent was unfit by reason of conduct or conditions seriously detrimental to her children in that she allowed conduct to be committed towards her children of a cruel and abusive nature, and she subjected her children to aggravated circumstances of sexual abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court, holding (1) even if the trial justice erred in permitting witnesses to testify about hearsay statements made by the children, the error was harmless because clear and convincing evidence supported the trial justice's findings; and (2) the trial justice did not err in failing to address whether the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) had met its burden of proving that it made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification between Respondent and her children before DCYF filed a petition to terminate parental rights, as DCYF was under no obligation to attempt reunification of the family. View "In re Rita F." on Justia Law

In 2000, Lauren unsuccessfully petitioned for guardianship of her father, Glenn. Appellants, including Lauren, subsequently removed Glenn from his house and refused to disclose his location. On June 26, 2003, the probate court awarded temporary limited co-guardianship to Glenn's business partner, David, and to Glenn's son, Dan. Because Appellant's refused to disclose Glenn's whereabouts, the court later ordered Appellants to retrieve Glenn and bring him before the court. In 2005, the probate court adjudged Appellants to be in contempt of the court's July 26, 2003 order. The court then appointed David as permanent guardian for Glenn. Glenn died in 2007. In 2010, the probate court assessed compensatory and contempt sanctions against Appellants totaling $447,000 in the aggregate. In 2011, the trial justice dismissed Appellants' appeals for failure to timely provide the probate record. Later that year, the superior court issued an execution on the probate court order awarding sanctions. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Appellants' appeals, as the Court could not conduct any meaningful review due to the lack of a record before it. View "Griggs v. Heal" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a divorce decree, Plaintiff was awarded sole custody of her and Defendant's daughter, as well as all personal property in her possession, with a few exceptions, including a pair of diamond earrings. Later, Plaintiff filed a motion for the return of missing property and a federal question motion alleging a constitutional valuation due to a court clerk's failure to docket his earlier motion for an evaluation of his daughter. At a hearing, Plaintiff turned over the diamond earrings that were purportedly awarded to Defendant in the divorce decree, and the hearing justice then dismissed the two motions. Defendant subsequently asserted that Plaintiff had given him the wrong earrings. A hearing justice approved the proposed order dismissing Defendant's motion for return of missing property with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court, holding (1) the hearing justice properly denied Defendant's federal question motion, as Defendant did not appeal the entry of final judgment in his divorce and, thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear custody and visitation issues in this case; and (2) the hearing justice did not err in dismissing Defendant's motion for the return of personal property with prejudice. View "Richards v. Fiore" on Justia Law

The family court terminated the parental rights of Father and Mother (collectively, Respondents) to their daughter, Amiah P., after finding that both parents presented troubling histories involving imprisonment and drugs, that both parents had been incarcerated and Father was currently incarcerated, and that Amiah had been in foster care for nearly two years and had bonded with her foster family. The Supreme Court affirmed the family court's decree, holding that there was ample evidence to support the trial justice's finding that the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were unfit parents and that the termination of their parental rights was in Amiah's best interests. View "In re Amiah P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Sofya Zharkopva appealed a family court judgment that dismissed her complaint against Defendant Paul Gaudreau. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged she and Defendant were in a common-law marriage. At trial, after hearing testimony from the parties and from several other witnesses, the trial justice found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of a common-law marriage by clear and convincing evidence; accordingly, he dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial justice's decision failed to do "substantial justice" between the parties and that the trial justice overlooked and/or misconceived relevant and material evidence or was otherwise "clearly wrong." After review of the family court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not misconceive or overlook relevant evidence, nor was he clearly wrong when he found that Plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a common-law marriage existed between herself and the defendant. View "Zharkova v. Gaudreau" on Justia Law

Pro se Defendant Mary Y. Seguin challenged a Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Jessup & Conroy, P.C. (the law firm), on her counterclaim in this collection action. In late 2001, Seguin retained the law firm to represent her in two Rhode Island Family Court matters, a divorce action involving her former husband, Marc Seguin, and a paternity action involving her former boss at a prior place of employment. The law firm entered its appearance in both cases. Soon thereafter, Defendant received a large cash settlement from her former employer. Mr. Seguin successfully entreated a Family Court justice to impound the settlement as a marital asset and to place the funds in an escrow account with the children's guardian ad litem. Over the next year, litigation ensued in both Family Court matters; ultimately, the law firm withdrew as counsel for Defendant in the two cases, citing Defendant's repeated requests that the law firm file baseless motions, as well as her refusal to pay over $30,000 in legal fees for services rendered. Defendant and her former husband signed an addendum to their property-settlement agreement, which stipulated that any funds held in escrow were to be deposited in equal shares into irrevocable trusts established for the benefit of the minor daughter fathered by Mr. Seguin. That August, both Seguin and Mr. Seguin requested, via correspondence to the law firm, that the law firm release all escrowed funds to them personally. However, the law firm declined to honor that request based on the addendum's provision that the escrow funds be deposited into irrevocable trusts. After a repeated request from Defendant and her former husband coupled with the imposition of a Family Court sanction upon Defendant in the paternity action, the law firm filed a motion for instructions in the divorce action, seeking guidance from the Family Court in regard to distribution of the escrow funds at issue. A Family Court justice ordered the law firm to provide an accounting of the funds and to deposit them into irrevocable trusts as set forth in the addendum. The law firm complied by providing an accounting of the funds and deposited the money into two trust accounts. Subsequently, the law firm filed a complaint against Defendant seeking to recover unpaid legal fees. In response, Defendant filed an answer, as well as a counterclaim, setting forth fifteen counts against the law firm, including: (1) false advertising; (2) deceptive trade practices; (3) fraud; (4) wire fraud; (5) mail fraud; (6) RICO violations; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) breach of fiduciary duty by trustee; (9) breach of trust; (10) grand theft; (11) tampering with/altering legal records; (12) legal malpractice; (13) negligence; (14) breach of contract; and (15) breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After hearing from both parties, the motion justice concluded that Defendant had failed to meet her burden in opposing Plaintiff's motion. Defendant appealed. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding Defendant indeed failed to meet her burden to defeat Plaintiff's motion. View "Jessup & Conroy, P.C. v. Seguin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John J. Tworog appealed two Family Court orders pertaining to his divorce proceedings with Defendant Dolores M. Tworog. John first appealed an order denying his motion to reopen the final judgment of divorce, alleging that the judgment was based on mistakes of fact and fraud. He also appealed an order finding him in contempt of court for not complying with the final judgment of divorce. Upon review, the Supreme Court deferred to the hearing justice's findings of fact in this case, and with no abuse of discretion, affirmed the justice's decision to deny John's motion to reopen the divorce judgment. Furthermore, the Court found the record supported the hearing justice's finding of contempt. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Family Court orders. View "Tworog v. Tworog" on Justia Law

The parties to this appeal were former spouses, and the issue before the Supreme Court involved the marital settlement agreement they entered into in connection with their divorce. The dispute centered around the appraisal of certain real estate of the former husband, Robert Hazard, which real estate he acquired before his marriage to Connie Hazard. Upon Connie's motion to enforce the agreement, an appraiser valued the property at significantly less than the parties' alleged understanding of the property's value at the time of the agreement. The family court granted Connie's motion and ordered Robert to pay Connie $192,500. Robert appealed, arguing that based upon a mutual mistake of fact, Connie received an unconscionable windfall and that the agreement should be vacated. The Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing with the hearing justice that a mutual mistake of material fact was not established in this case by clear and convincing evidence. View "Hazard v. Hazard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Beth DePrete, appealed from an order of the family court reflecting the court's denial of her motion seeking leave of court to relocate the parties' two minor children from Rhode Island to Texas and seeking modification of the final judgment o divorce to reflect same. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court, holding that the family court justice (1) did not overlook or misconceive the evidence and was not clearly wrong in finding it was not in the best interests of the children to allow them to relocate to Texas; and (2) properly applied the criteria set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in Dupre v. Dupre in determining whether relocation served the best interests of the children. View "DePrete v. DePrete" on Justia Law

Defendant Milton Pelosi appealed from two orders of the family court, an order denying Defendant's motion to vacate the entry of the interlocutory judgment and the final judgment of divorce and the order granting Plaintiff Kathleen Pelosi's motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal. On appeal, Defendant contended that he was never provided notice of (1) the entry of the final judgment of divorce, or (2) the hearing pursuant to which the amended final judgment was entered. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court dismissing Defendant's appeal, holding that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in granting Plaintiff's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Defendant had failed to perfect his appeal. View "Pelosi v. Pelosi" on Justia Law