15 A.3d 1031
R.I.2011Background
- This is a Rhode Island Supreme Court case where Paula Arroyo appeals a Family Court order in a custody, visitation, and child-support matter involving Samantha Tamayo, born 2005, with Cesar Tamayo as the father.
- Tamayo filed a miscellaneous action in 2007 seeking custody, visitation, and child support; Arroyo counterclaimed for sole custody and support.
- A magistrate heard from Tamayo, Arroyo, and Lt. Col. Ricottilli, revealing Tamayo’s military and National Guard income, including a one-time bonus and locality pay.
- Arroyo claimed day-care expenses and challenged Tamayo’s claimed income, while the magistrate excluded non-taxable and some reported income and inferred improper cash payments.
- The February 2008 bench decision excluded locality pay/income not reported to the IRS and rental income, and denied retroactive day-care reimbursement; no specific child-support amount was set.
- The November 2008 decision largely affirmed most findings, Arroyo appealed, and the Supreme Court vacated the Family Court order and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is properly before the Court. | Tamayo contends direct appeal rules apply to modifications; certiorari procedure required. | Arroyo maintains this is a direct appeal from the sole child-support order, not a modification; §14-1-52 controls. | The Court has jurisdiction to decide on direct appeal. |
| Should locality pay, BAQ, and other non-taxable income be included in child-support calculations? | Tamayo’s locality pay and other income should be considered as income. | Arroyo argues such income is not properly includable or is not properly considered. | Locality pay and other non-taxable income must be included in income for child-support purposes; the analysis on BAQ was erroneous. |
| Was rental income properly considered in calculating support? | Tamayo’s rental income should be reviewed as potential supportable income. | The magistrate relied on 2006 tax return and ignored rental income details. | On remand, Family Court must carefully review rental income/expenses and make specific findings. |
| Should Arroyo be reimbursed for day-care expenses? | Day-care costs are reasonable and reimbursable. | The magistrate relied on unproven inferences about cash payments and offered free care. | Arroyo is entitled to retroactive reimbursement for reasonable day-care expenses; remand for calculation. |
| Did the magistrate properly apply the income and guidelines for child-support calculation? | Formulas and guidelines require inclusion of all appropriate income and expenses. | The magistrate misapplied income definitions and relied on outdated data. | Remand for recalculation consistent with guidelines and updated income data. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waters v. Magee, 877 A.2d 658 (R.I. 2005) (standard to review child-support decisions under discretion of Family Court)
- Paradiso v. Paradiso, 122 R.I. 1 (R.I. 1979) (guidelines balance child needs with parent’s ability to pay)
- Mattera v. Mattera, 669 A.2d 538 (R.I. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard in support orders)
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 619 A.2d 432 (R.I. 1993) (appeal/standard of review in Family Court decisions)
- Sullivan v. Sullivan, 460 A.2d 1248 (R.I. 1983) (consideration of child welfare alongside financial ability to pay)
- Brierly v. Brierly, 431 A.2d 410 (R.I. 1981) (factors informing child-support awards)
- Lembo v. Lembo, 624 A.2d 1089 (R.I. 1993) (broad interpretation of income for support purposes)
- Adam v. Adam, 624 A.2d 1093 (R.I. 1993) (income considerations in support determinations)