Hazard v. Hazard
45 A.3d 545
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Former spouses Connie and Robert Hazard entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) on Jan 14, 2010, incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree, dividing assets and assigning debts; the agreement references two real properties and their value increases during marriage and provides for a payment to Connie of $192,500 in exchange for Connie waiving any interest in the properties.
- The valuation relied on an appraisal by Marcia Feeley for Bridgetown Road (appraisal described as single-family with an accessory unit) and a rival appraisal by Joseph Durette (two-family rental property); the Town of Narragansett later appraised the Bridgetown Road property at about $500,000.
- Connie filed a motion to enforce the MSA for $192,500 in Jan 2011 after Robert failed to pay the amount; at a Nov 2010 hearing, experts testified about Feeley’s and Durette’s appraisals and methodologies.
- The Family Court found Feeley’s testimony more credible, determined no mutual mistake occurred, and granted Connie’s motion to enforce the MSA; Robert appealed.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no mutual mistake proven by clear and convincing evidence and thus the Family Court did not err in enforcing the MSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a mutual mistake of material fact in valuing the Bridgetown Road property at the time of the MSA? | Hazard contends Feeley’s appraisal was erroneous, creating a mutual mistake. | Feeley’s appraisal was credible and preferable; no mutual mistake. | No mutual mistake proven; enforce the MSA. |
| Should the court reform or vacate the MSA based on the asserted mutual mistake? | Hazard seeks vacatur/reformation under Gorman v. Gorman. | No reform without clear, convincing proof of mutual mistake. | No reform; refuse vacatur; enforce the MSA. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for Family Court findings on appraisal and mutual mistake? | Appraisal credibility undermines the court’s factual conclusions. | R.I. appellate review defers to the Family Court’s credibility determinations. | Court defers to Family Court’s findings; no error shown. |
| Does reliance on Feeley’s appraisal render the MSA unenforceable? | Reliance on erroneous appraisal could invalidate the agreement. | Reliance on Feeley’s appraisal was reasonable; no mutual mistake. | Reliance does not void the MSA; no mutual mistake proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. Gorman, 883 A.2d 732 (R.I. 2005) (mutual mistake not proven; potential grounds for reform lacking here)
- Esposito v. Esposito, 38 A.3d 1 (R.I. 2012) (burden to prove mutual mistake clear and convincing)
- Zaino v. Zaino, 818 A.2d 630 (R.I. 2003) (MSA incorporated but not merged; contract-like treatment in interpretation)
- Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Dufault, 958 A.2d 620 (R.I. 2008) (mutual mistake defined; requires clear proof)
- McEntee v. Davis, 861 A.2d 459 (R.I. 2004) (mutual mistake proof; standard for relief)