218 A.3d 551
R.I.2019Background
- Adam and Erin Saltzman married in 2009 and have two minor children; Adam is a cardiologist earning ~$550,000/year; Erin has been the primary caregiver and has not worked since 2011.
- The couple separated after Adam engaged in an extramarital relationship; the Family Court found Adam was not candid about the affair.
- Family Court granted divorce, awarded joint legal custody with physical placement to Erin, denied Erin’s request to relocate the children to Ohio, and set visitation rights for Adam (including two midweek overnights).
- Financial orders: Adam to pay costs to maintain the marital home for 30 months (then sell); alimony of $50,000 (treated as contribution toward home costs); child support initially set at $5,500/month; sale proceeds of the marital home allocated 70% to Erin and 30% to Adam; all other assets divided equally.
- Family Court declined to award Erin general attorneys’ fees (but imposed a $3,000 sanction on Adam and directed him to pay fees related to discovery of his lack of candor). Supreme Court affirmed most rulings but vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded for factual findings on fee eligibility and the amount Adam must pay for fees tied to his lack of candor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adam) | Defendant's Argument (Erin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relocation to Ohio | Opposed relocation; trial justice properly weighed best-interest factors. | Relocation would improve Erin’s employment/housing, provide family support, and better opportunities for children. | Denial of relocation affirmed; trial justice properly applied Dupré and Pettinato factors. |
| Alimony / Temporary use of home | Arrangement to have Adam pay home costs (counted as alimony) is permissible and rehabilitative. | Award too low and payment method improper (payments should be direct alimony). | Alimony award and method affirmed as within discretion. |
| Child support amount | Trial justice’s $5,500/month is within discretion given children’s needs and Adam’s income. | Court erred by not awarding guideline minimum or different calculation. | Child support award affirmed as reasonable and within discretion. |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs | Opposed a broad fee award; argued Erin is employable. | Erin argued trial court erred by denying fees without findings on her ability to pay counsel. | Denied in part: Supreme Court vacated denial and remanded because trial justice failed to make required findings about Erin’s ability to pay and Adam’s ability to pay fees. |
| Equitable distribution of marital estate | Distribution (70/30 on house proceeds to Erin/Adam and equal split of remainder) properly applied statutory factors. | Trial justice failed to adequately weigh Adam’s infidelity in distribution. | Distribution and domicile allocation affirmed; fault is not controlling and trial justice did not abuse discretion. |
| Visitation schedule (midweek overnights) | Visitation schedule appropriate to preserve parent-child relationship. | Midweek overnight visits are not in children’s best interests. | Visitation award affirmed; trial justice properly considered Pettinato factors. |
| Sanctions for lack of candor | Sanction amount appropriate given circumstances; trial justice also ordered Adam to pay related discovery fees. | $3,000 sanction insufficient for false testimony under oath. | Sanction affirmed as within discretion; trial justice to assess fees tied to discovery on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 186 A.3d 1074 (R.I. 2018) (deference to trial justice on best-interests and relocation analysis)
- Dupré v. Dupré, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004) (articulates eight Dupré factors for relocation inquiries)
- Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990) (lists Pettinato custodial best-interest factors)
- Meyer v. Meyer, 68 A.3d 571 (R.I. 2013) (alimony is rehabilitative; statutory factors to consider)
- McCulloch v. McCulloch, 69 A.3d 810 (R.I. 2013) (trial court must find inability to pay before awarding counsel fees)
- Tondreault v. Tondreault, 966 A.2d 654 (R.I. 2009) (three-step framework for equitable distribution)
- Trojan v. Trojan, 208 A.3d 221 (R.I. 2019) (principles guiding child-support determinations)