295 A.3d 828
R.I.2023Background
- Married in 2000; divorce filed in 2017. Both waived alimony; main dispute was equitable distribution of assets.
- Defendant repeatedly failed to disclose assets (five incomplete DR-6s); a commissioner was appointed and subpoenaed institutions, uncovering undisclosed pension, multiple CDs, and other accounts; defendant had placed assets in a family trust but moved assets freely.
- Marital domicile (14 By the Way St.) was bought by defendant before marriage but was the couple’s home throughout the marriage; plaintiff paid $700/month (believing it was her half of the mortgage), paid household bills, and contributed to maintenance.
- 78 Delwood was owned by plaintiff before the marriage; she rented it out, inherited funds were used for remodeling, and defendant did some work and bought some supplies.
- Trial court awarded plaintiff 50% of defendant’s VA pension, 50% of the CDs, 50% of the appreciation in the marital domicile, and left appreciation in 78 Delwood with plaintiff (i.e., not subject to distribution); it also imposed $50,000 in discovery sanctions and credited plaintiff $16,000 for funds defendant withdrew during the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of VA pension | Pension accrued during marriage and is marital property subject to distribution | Pension effectively "nonexistent" or not divisible because defendant collects workers’ comp and won’t retire | Court: Pension accrued during marriage and is marital property; awarding share despite defendant delaying retirement is proper |
| CDs (undisclosed accounts) | CDs discovered by commissioner are marital; plaintiff entitled to 50% | CDs were funded with nonmarital funds and/or held in trust | Court: Defendant failed to prove nonmarital origin; CDs are marital and 50% distribution is within trial justice’s discretion |
| Appreciation of marital domicile | Increase during marriage is marital to the extent attributable to spouse efforts; plaintiff contributed financially and by homemaking | Property acquired before marriage, appreciation passive and nonmarital | Court: Appreciation during marriage is marital; 50% awarded to plaintiff was not an abuse of discretion |
| Appreciation of 78 Delwood | Plaintiff owned pre-marriage and remodeling was upkeep; appreciation is nonmarital | Defendant claims his contributions to remodeling produced marital appreciation | Court: Remodeling was necessary upkeep; appreciation is nonmarital and remains with plaintiff |
| Discovery sanctions and $16,000 credit / alleged double standard | Sanctions justified by prolonged nondisclosure and withholding; withdrawals offset to plaintiff | Sanctions arbitrary; trial court applied a double standard; $16,000 was used to pay counsel and not marital spending | Court: Monetary sanctions under Rule 37 were appropriate; $50,000 (discounted from higher amount) affirmed; $16,000 credit and no double-standard found |
Key Cases Cited
- Boschetto v. Boschetto, 224 A.3d 824 (R.I. 2020) (deference to family‑court factual findings in divorce proceedings)
- Saltzman v. Saltzman, 218 A.3d 551 (R.I. 2019) (three‑step framework for equitable distribution)
- McCulloch v. McCulloch, 69 A.3d 810 (R.I. 2013) (standards for abuse of discretion review)
- Bober v. Bober, 92 A.3d 152 (R.I. 2014) (pension benefits earned during marriage are marital property)
- Pezza v. Pezza, 571 A.2d 1123 (R.I. 1990) (trusts can be disregarded when created to defeat spouse’s marital claims)
- Zaino v. Zaino, 818 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2003) (upholding daily monetary discovery sanctions)
- Lembo v. Lembo, 677 A.2d 414 (R.I. 1996) (available sanctions for discovery violations)
- Mezini v. Mezini, 268 A.3d 1171 (R.I. 2022) (appreciation of premarital property attributable to spouse efforts can be marital)