184 A.3d 1130
R.I.2018Background
- Bowman and Forgue married in 2007, separated March 1, 2013; Bowman filed for divorce January 24, 2014. A multi-day trial produced a magistrate’s decision finding irreconcilable differences; judgment entered March 29, 2016.
- Bowman filed a Rule 59(e) motion (May 31, 2016) alleging newly discovered evidence and clear error, chiefly asserting Forgue concealed sale of the "Tourtellot" property at trial.
- The magistrate limited relief to the undisclosed Tourtellot sale, held the property’s purchase was premarital but that marital efforts increased its value, and awarded Bowman 60% of the appreciation (lump-sum payment); other claims (contempt, turnover) were denied as barred or not proven.
- On appeal to the Family Court trial justice, four issues were reviewed: characterization of Tourtellot appreciation, lump-sum payment, turnover of certain personal property, and contempt. The trial justice affirmed the appreciation as marital, adjusted the math, ordered return of admitted personal items, and affirmed lump-sum payment and denial of contempt.
- Bowman, proceeding pro se, appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which confined review to the trial justice’s disposition of Bowman’s Rule 59(e) motion and whether the trial justice abused discretion or committed legal error.
- The Supreme Court found Bowman failed to show abuse of discretion or legal error, declined to consider arguments not properly developed or not before the court, and affirmed the Family Court order; record remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appreciation in value of Tourtellot property is marital property | Bowman argued appreciation should be awarded to her because Forgue concealed the sale and misreported finances | Forgue argued property purchased with premarital funds and sale did not create marital interest beyond what was already adjudicated | Court held appreciation was marital to extent increased by Bowman's efforts and awarded her 60% of growth (magistrate affirmed) |
| Whether payment to Bowman must be lump-sum | Bowman challenged lump-sum requirement | Forgue supported lump-sum payment as ordered | Court affirmed lump-sum payment order |
| Whether court should order turnover of certain personal property (French buffet, dining table/chairs) | Bowman sought return of personal items still held by Forgue | Forgue disputed or did not contest possession of some items | Trial justice ordered return of items Forgue admitted possessing; magistrate denial otherwise reversed/amended |
| Whether Forgue should be adjudged in contempt for missed payments | Bowman sought contempt for untimely payments | Forgue relied on parties’ agreement and payments status | Court affirmed denial of contempt; trial justice noted parties reached agreement on unpaid payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Virgilio, 58 A.3d 914 (R.I. 2012) (appellant must show trial justice abused discretion or committed legal error)
- Giammarco v. Giammarco, 151 A.3d 1220 (R.I. 2017) (court will not develop undeveloped arguments for pro se litigant)
- McMahon v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 131 A.3d 175 (R.I. 2016) (court will not give life to undeveloped arguments)
- Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580 (R.I. 2005) (pro se litigant still bound by procedural rules)
- Gray v. Stillman White Co., 522 A.2d 737 (R.I. 1987) (importance of adhering to procedural rules to present issues and expedite court business)