47 A.3d 333
R.I.2012Background
- Michael and Jennifer married on May 24, 1997, with a prenuptial agreement allocating the CA property to Michael.
- The California property served as their marital home and was held in Michael's name throughout the marriage.
- In 2003 they relocated to Rhode Island but retained ownership of the California property for rental income; Jennifer operated a daycare there.
- At trial (divorce filed July 6, 2007) the parties stipulated current value of the property as $480,000, with a mortgage around $195,000, and a 1997 marriage-value of $167,000.
- The trial court calculated appreciation as $263,000 and, after subtracting the mortgage, awarded Jennifer 60% of $68,000 net value; Michael was held responsible for the mortgage.
- This Court remanded on December 13, 2011 to clarify whether credible evidence of a premarital mortgage existed and whether it affected appreciation calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether credible premarital mortgage evidence affected appreciation | Jennifer argues the trial court overlooked credible mortgage evidence. | Michael argues no credible premarital mortgage evidence existed to affect appreciation. | Affirmed: no error; trial court properly did not credit premarital mortgage evidence. |
| Whether the court properly calculated the appreciated value and distribution | Jennifer contends the calculation or distribution was incorrect due to missed evidence. | Michael contends the calculation complied with § 15-5-16.1 and the facts found credibility. | Affirmed: calculation and distribution approved given credibility findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curry v. Curry, 987 A.2d 233 (R.I. 2010) (standards for reviewing equitable distribution findings)
- Schwab v. Schwab, 944 A.2d 156 (R.I. 2008) (court may remand for overlooked salient evidence)
- Ruffel v. Ruffel, 900 A.2d 1178 (R.I. 2006) (remand for consideration of uncontradicted evidence)