89 A.3d 772
R.I.2014Background
- Final judgment of divorce between Stephen and Sandra Carney in 2006; MSA approved but not merged into final judgment; two children aged 4 and 8; 2011 sale of marital domicile for $356,250; MSA paragraph seven requires Sandra to pay Stephen $100,000 in 2024 unless triggering events occur; triggering events include Sandra's cohabitation/remarriage and a sale triggering an accelerated payment with a sale-based formula; 2012 Family Court decision holding sale before 2024 triggers immediate payment and applying a 50% reduction formula resulting in $59,375; subsequent appeals challenge timing, calculation, and a separate enrichment-activities cost-sharing provision; appellate remand for factual findings on intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing of equitable-distribution payment under sale | Carney contends sale triggers payment; ambiguity supports immediate payment. | Carney argues payment timing fixed at 2024 unless other events occur. | Ambiguity found; remand for intent findings on timing. |
| Calculation of amount owed in event of sale | Amount should be 60% of difference? (paraphrase) | Calculation should yield $40,625 under the formula. | Trial court erred; amount due is $40,625; timing remains to be determined on remand. |
| Whether enrichment/child-enrichment costs modification was proper | Waived issue not properly preserved on appeal. | Same; not properly preserved. | Issue waived; not reviewed on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riffenburg v. Riffenburg, 585 A.2d 627 (R.I. 1991) (contractual nature of a non-merged MSA; contract interpretation governs)
- Paul v. Paul, 986 A.2d 989 (R.I. 2010) (ambiguity determined by ordinary meaning; two reasonable constructions may exist)
- Gorman v. Gorman, 883 A.2d 732 (R.I. 2005) (review of trial court’s factual/ambiguity determinations)
- Beacon Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spino Bros., Inc., 11 A.3d 645 (R.I. 2011) (de novo review of questions of law; defer to findings of fact)
- O’Connell v. Finlay, 583 A.2d 546 (R.I. 1990) (fact-findings necessary when interpreting ambiguous terms)
- Andrukiewicz v. Andrukiewicz, 860 A.2d 235 (R.I. 2004) (every word of contract should be given meaning; avoid surplusage)
- McCulloch v. McCulloch, 69 A.3d 810 (R.I. 2013) (illustrates proper application of contractual language)
- Singer v. Singer, 692 A.2d 691 (R.I. 1997) (plain and ordinary meaning applied to contract terms)