204 A.3d 1102
R.I.2019Background
- Diane and Paul Giarrusso divorced after 23 years; their Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), incorporated (but not merged) into the final divorce decree, awarded Diane ownership of two dogs (greyhound Marox and Chihuahua Winnie) and granted Paul visitation Tuesdays 8 a.m. to Thursdays 8 a.m.
- Paul exercised weekly visitation from Oct 2016 through March 2017; Diane ceased allowing visits after March 29, 2017 following incidents during a visit (Marox briefly missing, later found in a closet; prior veterinary visits for injuries Diane attributed to Paul’s care).
- Paul filed a post-judgment motion to enforce the MSA visitation, seek makeup visits, and recover attorney’s fees; Diane filed a countermotion seeking to enjoin Paul from visits, alleging breach of the MSA and unsafe care.
- The Family Court held an evidentiary hearing, reviewed testimony, texts, emails, and veterinary records, and found both parties loved the dogs, that Paul acted in good faith, and that the MSA unambiguously granted Paul the scheduled visitation without allocation of care costs.
- The Family Court ordered enforcement of the MSA visitation term and awarded Paul $5,248.70 in attorney’s fees; Diane appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Giarrusso) | Defendant's Argument (Giarrusso) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Family Court should reform or withdraw approval of the MSA visitation term | Diane: MSA enforcement is inequitable given alleged breaches and harm to dogs; seeks reformation/withdrawal | Paul: MSA unambiguous; visitation right should be enforced as written | Court: No mutual mistake; MSA is a valid contract term; no reformation or withdrawal warranted |
| Whether Paul breached implied covenant of good faith or failed to care for dogs, making visitation inequitable | Diane: Evidence (injuries, missing dog incident) shows bad faith and unsafe care; inequitable to allow visitation | Paul: Acted in good faith; incidents explained; disagrees he neglected dogs | Court: Hearing justice’s finding that Paul acted in good faith was supported by record; not clearly wrong |
| Whether the Family Court properly enforced the MSA visitation provision | Diane: Enforcement would be unjust given facts | Paul: Enforcement is proper remedy for Diane’s withholding of visitation | Court: Enforcement upheld; ordered continued Tuesday–Thursday visits |
| Whether awarding attorney’s fees to Paul was erroneous | Diane: (briefly argued) fees improper | Paul: fees appropriate; Diane consented at hearing | Court: Diane waived appellate review by consenting and failing to preserve argument; fee award stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruffel v. Ruffel, 900 A.2d 1178 (R.I. 2006) (standard of appellate review of Family Court factual findings)
- Bober v. Bober, 92 A.3d 152 (R.I. 2014) (deference to trial justice on factual findings in divorce actions)
- Esposito v. Esposito, 38 A.3d 1 (R.I. 2012) (property settlement agreements incorporated but not merged retain contract characteristics)
- Gorman v. Gorman, 883 A.2d 732 (R.I. 2005) (Family Court may withdraw approval of a property settlement agreement if inequitable; reformation requires mutual mistake)
- O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, 79 A.3d 815 (R.I. 2013) (court will not set aside property settlement simply because a party is unhappy with results)