68 A.3d 571
R.I.2013Background
- Lori Meyer filed for divorce in Rhode Island on April 22, 2009; Patrick Meyer was personally served in Rhode Island but never personally appeared at trial.
- Patrick moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Lori had not resided in Rhode Island for the required one-year period before filing.
- Lori conceded she spent ~172 days in southern France between April 2008 and April 2009 working on a jointly owned vacation home, but testified her permanent residence, voter registration, and tax filings were in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
- Family Court denied the motion to dismiss, found Lori met the one-year residency and domicile requirements, divided marital property (including the French home), awarded Lori three years of rehabilitative alimony ($1,250/week), assessed sanctions and counsel-fee contributions against Patrick, and enjoined Patrick from pursuing a foreign divorce.
- Patrick filed for divorce in France after the injunction; the Family Court found him in contempt and ordered him to pay part of Lori’s counsel fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lori) | Defendant's Argument (Patrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Subject-matter jurisdiction (residency) | Lori: she maintained Rhode Island as her permanent residence, filed RI tax returns, registered to vote, and was physically present in RI before filing. | Patrick: Lori’s ~172-day stay in France during the year before filing interrupted the required continuous one-year residence. | Court affirmed Family Court: objective residency factors supported jurisdiction; trial justice’s reliance on intent was misplaced but outcome stands. |
| 2. Rehabilitative alimony | Lori: needs temporary support to become self-sufficient; presented expenses and limited assets/earnings. | Patrick: contends award was excessive or unsupported. | Affirmed: trial justice considered statutory factors and did not abuse discretion in awarding three years at $1,250/week. |
| 3. Counsel fees award | Lori: entitled to reasonable counsel fees; proffered detailed billing. | Patrick: challenged amount and allocation. | Affirmed by an evenly divided court (no majority to overturn the Family Court award). |
| 4. Contempt for filing in France | Lori: Family Court injunction prohibited foreign divorce; Patrick violated the order and should be held in contempt and pay fees. | Patrick: argued injunction merged into later interlocutory decision or otherwise was not enforceable. | Affirmed: contempt finding and fee award upheld; Patrick filed in France before interlocutory judgment and thus violated the clear injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Rogers, 18 A.3d 491 (R.I. 2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction in divorce matters governed by statute)
- McCarthy v. McCarthy, 45 R.I. 367 (R.I. 1923) (statutory one-year residence requires actual, continuous presence; absences evaluated in context)
- Root v. Root, 57 R.I. 436 (R.I. 1937) (deference to trial judge’s factual findings on residence/domicile)
- Doerner v. Doerner, 46 R.I. 41 (R.I. 1924) (temporary absences may not interrupt statutory continuity of residence)
- DeBlois v. Clark, 764 A.2d 727 (R.I. 2001) (distinguishing domicile from residence; intent is element of domicile)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 973 A.2d 499 (R.I. 2009) (rehabilitative alimony is prospective and based on need)
- Ruffel v. Ruffel, 900 A.2d 1178 (R.I. 2006) (standard of review for alimony awards: abuse of discretion)
- Pontbriand v. Pontbriand, 622 A.2d 482 (R.I. 1993) (contempt appropriate for disregard of a valid court order)