224 A.3d 824
R.I.2020Background
- Raymond (Ted) and Cindy Boschetto married in 2007 and executed a premarital agreement that (1) treated future contributions to Cindy’s listed investment accounts as jointly owned and (2) waived alimony. They have one daughter (b. 2009).
- Ted filed for divorce in 2015; trial occurred in 2016 (Ted pro se). The Family Court awarded joint custody (primary to Cindy), ordered Ted to pay $250/week child support, and set equitable distributions of assets.
- The premarital agreement listed Cindy’s 401(k) and a Morgan Stanley account; it provided that future contributions to those accounts be split equally on divorce.
- The trial justice (1) treated only the post-marriage contributions to Cindy’s 401(k) as divisible (not market appreciation), (2) split the Morgan Stanley account appreciation but declined to add back Cindy’s $33,600 withdrawals used during the divorce, and (3) charged Ted with a $10,000 withdrawal from a joint account used as a deposit on an unsuccessful Middletown property purchase and denied him recovery for $7,500 in related expenses.
- Ted challenged the asset allocations and the child support calculation on appeal; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and construing the premarital agreement according to its plain terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boschetto) | Defendant's Argument (Boschetto) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cindy’s 401(k) appreciation (interest/growth) during marriage is divisible under the premarital agreement | The phrase “all future contributions” includes accrued interest/total increase during marriage and thus half of total appreciation should be divided | The agreement’s plain language refers only to actual contributions; appreciation is distinct and not covered | Trial court correctly limited division to post-marriage contributions (not market appreciation) |
| Whether withdrawals Cindy made from Morgan Stanley during divorce ($33,600) should offset her divisible share | Withdrawals should offset Cindy’s share; otherwise Ted shoulders part of Cindy’s attorneys’ fees/housing costs | Withdrawals were necessary for prosecution of the divorce (housing/fees) and need not be added back | Trial court permissibly declined to offset; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Ted’s $10,000 and $7,500 Middletown expenditures should be treated as marital liabilities to be equally divided | The $10,000 (deposit) should be returned to the joint account and the $7,500 expenses should be shared as family investments | Ted acted unilaterally; Cindy did not consent; expenses were Ted’s alone | Trial court acted within discretion in charging Ted with the $10,000 and treating the $7,500 as his sole expense |
| Whether child support was miscalculated by using prior earnings history to impute higher earning capacity | Trial court improperly relied on seven-year work history, imputing income double Ted’s reported earnings | Court considered multiple income sources, tax returns, business cash and loans, and earning capacity is appropriate when parent is underemployed | Trial court did not abuse discretion; imputing $120,000 earning capacity and $250/week support was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Vieira v. Hussein-Vieira, 150 A.3d 611 (discusses standard of review and equitable distribution framework)
- Koutroumanos v. Tzeremes, 865 A.2d 1091 (sets out three-step equitable-distribution process)
- Wright v. Zielinski, 824 A.2d 494 (premarital agreements and contract principles in Family Court)
- Marsocci v. Marsocci, 911 A.2d 690 (appreciation of premarital property may be assigned under statute when attributable to marital efforts)
- Rubino v. Rubino, 765 A.2d 1222 (premarital agreements are enforceable absent clear-and-convincing proof otherwise)
- Bober v. Bober, 92 A.3d 152 (trial justice’s wide discretion in dividing marital property and considering divorce-related expenditures)
- Wu-Carter v. Carter, 179 A.3d 711 (trial justice’s broad discretion to divide marital property fairly)
- Trojan v. Trojan, 208 A.3d 221 (child-support determination follows statutory guidelines and is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sullivan v. Sullivan, 460 A.2d 1248 (earning capacity and prior work history are relevant to child-support imputation)