Anne duPont CORBIN v. Richard Beverley CORBIN, III
152 A.3d 1146
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Parties married in 1997; divorced by final Family Court judgment (Apr. 9, 2009) that incorporated (but did not merge) a property settlement agreement (PSA) executed Jan. 9, 2009.
- PSA paragraph 7(E) required Husband (Bev) to pay Wife (Anne) 40% of any settlement he received from Wells Fargo for work performed before entry of the final judgment; paragraph 10(A) required Bev to notify Anne when he obtained new employment so child support could be recalculated.
- Bev negotiated a departure agreement with Wells Fargo in Jan. 2009 and later received $138,937.29 (net) as part of that agreement; Bev claimed the payment was severance/future compensation and therefore nonmarital.
- Family Court found the payment represented compensation for 2007–2008 (back wages), not severance for future earnings; it characterized defense counsel’s and Bev’s conduct as intentionally evasive and contrived, and awarded Anne 50% of the settlement (after crediting Bev’s litigation expenses but denying him reimbursement because of his misconduct).
- Family Court also found Bev failed to provide the direct notice to Anne required by the PSA when he obtained new employment (reports to guardian ad litem and therapist were inadequate) and awarded Anne attorney’s fees for prosecuting the child-support modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of Wells Fargo payment as marital or nonmarital property | Payment is marital under PSA and equitable distribution principles; award to Anne appropriate | Payment was traditional severance/future compensation (nonmarital) under Kirk and other authorities | Payment characterized as compensation for past work/back wages (marital); trial justice’s factual findings affirmed |
| Credit for attorney fees Bev paid to secure the departure agreement | Anne argued Bev should not be reimbursed given his misconduct | Bev argued his litigation expenses to obtain the settlement are marital debt and he should get a credit for half | Trial justice treated the expense as marital but denied Bev reimbursement because of sharp dealing; appellate court upheld that discretionary denial |
| Requirement of notice of new employment under PSA and child-support modification | Anne argued PSA required direct notice from Bev; she received inadequate notice and was entitled to fees | Bev argued Anne had adequate notice via guardian ad litem, children’s therapist, and his counsel | Court held PSA required direct notice to Anne; secondary channels were inadequate; attorney’s-fee award upheld |
| Credibility of Bev’s testimony about nature of the Wells Fargo payment | Anne contested Bev’s credibility and asserted documentation supported marital-characterization | Bev claimed documentary evidence showed severance intent; he testified accordingly | Trial justice’s adverse credibility findings affirmed; appellate court defers to trial justice on credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976 (R.I. 1990) (distinguishing recovery for future earnings from divisible marital assets)
- Palin v. Palin, 41 A.3d 248 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review for Family Court factual findings and legal questions)
- D'Oliveira v. Rare Hospitality Int'l, Inc., 840 A.2d 538 (R.I. 2004) (employer severance obligations and at-will employment)
- Cardinale v. Cardinale, 889 A.2d 210 (R.I. 2006) (deference to Family Court factual findings)
- Zaino v. Zaino, 818 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2003) (trial justice’s credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Centazzo v. Centazzo, 556 A.2d 560 (R.I. 1989) (Family Court authority to award attorney's fees in divorce matters)