Pearson v. Pearson
11 A.3d 103
| R.I. | 2011Background
- Marion and Pearson entered a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) incorporated by reference in the final divorce judgment (2006).
- Paragraph 7 of the PSA obligates Pearson to reduce and remove Marion from the Bank of America line of credit; Marion’s reciprocal obligation and indemnification are contemplated.
- Paragraph 27 permits the non-bankrupt party (Marion) to pursue remedies and to have the bankrupt party (Pearson) meet and pay costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in pursuing those remedies.
- Pearson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (Sept. 13, 2005) and was discharged (Feb. 24, 2006); Marion remained exposed to the line of credit.
- Family Court repeatedly ordered Pearson to use best efforts to remove Marion from the line of credit and to indemnify her; later Rockstone sued Marion, and she moved for contempt against Pearson.
- The Family Court awarded Marion attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing contempt and defending against Rockstone, finding the PSA’s terms authorize such an award; Pearson appealed the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract basis for fee award to non-prevailing party | Marion argues PSA permits fees when actions arise under remedies in paragraph 27. | Pearson contends no prevailing-party requirement and no explicit non-prevailing-party fee provision. | Agreement supports fee award; not required to prevail. |
| Application of § 15-5-16 factors | Section 15-5-16 factors do not govern contractual fee awards. | Trial court failed to apply statutory factors. | § 15-5-16 not applicable; contract governs. |
| Standard of review and abuse of discretion | Discretionary award should be reviewed for abuse given contract basis. | (Not explicit; standard) | Defer to contract interpretation; no abuse found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Downey v. Carcieri, 996 A.2d 1144 (R.I.2010) (abuse of discretion standard; contract/ statutory authorization for fees)
- Napier v. Epoch Corp., 971 A.2d 594 (R.I.2009) (attorney’s fees may be awarded with proper authorization)
- Rodrigues v. DePasquale Building and Realty Co., 926 A.2d 616 (R.I.2007) (unambiguous contract terms applied as written)