151 A.3d 1220
R.I.2017Background
- Dante and Diane Giammarco divorced by final judgment entered June 5, 2007; marital estate apportioned 65% to Dante and 35% to Diane; Diane awarded $200/week alimony for three years.
- This Court affirmed the divorce judgment on appeal in Giammarco v. Giammarco.
- Dante later filed an enforcement complaint; after an August 2009 hearing (order issued September 2009) the Family Court found Diane owed Dante $26,234.16; Diane did not attend that hearing.
- Diane filed various post-judgment filings years later asserting Dante owed her monies from the original judgment; Dante sought contempt and summary judgment asserting Diane actually owed him money.
- Diane’s motion to vacate the August 2009 order was filed in July 2013 (four years after the order); the Family Court granted Dante’s summary judgment, characterized Diane’s motions as frivolous and untimely, and denied Diane’s later miscellaneous post-judgment complaint.
- Diane appealed the Family Court’s Feb. 18, 2015 and Apr. 2, 2015 orders; on appeal she mainly challenged the August 2009 order but failed to develop legal arguments or point to record evidence supporting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Family Court lacked authority to reduce Diane’s property settlement and alimony based on the August 2009 enforcement order | Diane: Family Court had no authority to reduce her previously approved property settlement and alimony and those amounts should be reinstated with interest | Dante: August 2009 order found Diane owed him money; Diane’s later filings are inconsistent and untimely; Family Court correctly enforced that order | Court: Diane failed to present developed legal argument or point to record; appeals are waived; Family Court judgment affirmed |
| Whether Diane’s July 2013 motion to vacate the August 2009 order was timely | Diane: (implicit) entitled to relief/vacatur despite delay | Dante: Motion was untimely and frivolous given prior proceedings and lack of appeal from 2009 order | Court: Motion untimely; four-year delay unreasonable under Rule 60(b); no relief |
| Whether the Supreme Court should search the record to support Diane’s undeveloped claims | Diane: asked Court to reinstate amounts but provided no specific legal or factual development | Dante: Court should not scour the record for undeveloped arguments | Court: Will not search the record; undeveloped issues treated as waived |
| Whether Family Court erred in characterizing Diane’s motions as frivolous and dismissing/denying post-judgment relief | Diane: objections to characterization and rulings | Dante: Motions repetitious and already decided; dismissal appropriate | Court: Agrees with Family Court; motions were repetitive/frivolous and properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Giammarco v. Giammarco, 959 A.2d 531 (R.I. 2008) (mem.) (this Court’s prior affirmance of the divorce judgment)
- McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 131 A.3d 175 (R.I. 2016) (Court will not search the record to substantiate undeveloped appellate claims)
- Riley v. Stone, 900 A.2d 1087 (R.I. 2006) (appellate court declines to consider issues not meaningfully discussed or briefed)
- Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Commission, 788 A.2d 1129 (R.I. 2002) (stating that merely stating an issue without meaningful discussion constitutes waiver)
- Sansone v. Morton Machine Works, Inc., 957 A.2d 386 (R.I. 2008) (motions under Rule 60(b) must be brought within a reasonable time)