Verrengia, D C v. Verrengia, Justin Anthony
KLCE202400622
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Jul 23, 2024Background
- After their divorce, DC Verrengia (Sterlin) filed for child custody and child support against Justin Anthony Verrengia in Puerto Rico for their minor child, Q.Y.S.V.
- Verrengia is the sole member of MY ALCHEMY, LLC and earns income from that company, as well as from dividends and cryptocurrency transactions.
- The core dispute centered on the proper calculation of Verrengia's income, including whether cryptocurrency gains and corporate dividends should be treated as income for child support purposes.
- The court-appointed examiner analyzed Verrengia’s financial records, testimony (including that of the parties and a CPA), and concluded that significant gains from cryptocurrency were realized and spent to acquire real property.
- The trial court set a multi-period child support payment schedule based on varying incomes and custodial arrangements and denied Verrengia’s motion for reconsideration; Verrengia then appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are cryptocurrency gains and corporate dividends income? | Should not count as income for support | Should count as income | Yes: such gains/dividends count as income |
| Was it error to consider value of property for >12 months? | Court should not have averaged over >12 months | Averaging was appropriate under facts | No error: Court used proper calculation method |
| Was the calculation based on proper appreciation of evidence? | The analysis overstated income | Examiner’s determination was correct | Deference given to examiner’s appreciation |
| Was a sufficient record provided on appeal (testimony, etc)? | Not necessary for this appeal | Appeal did not include required narrative/transcript | Required; without it, appellate review limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Figueroa v. Del Rosario, 147 D.P.R. 121 (1998) (Family law rulings on support and custody are appealable judgments, not mere resolutions)
- Otero Vélez v. Schroder Muñoz, 200 D.P.R. 76 (2018) (Explains when family court judgments are appealable)
- Cortes Pagan v. González Colon, 184 D.P.R. 807 (2012) (Differentiates between resolutions and judgments in family cases)
- Jusino González v. Norat Santiago, 211 D.P.R. 855 (2023) (Reviews standards for appellate deference in family law)
- Pesquera Fuentes v. Colón Medina, 202 D.P.R. 93 (2019) (Role of appellate court in reviewing findings of fact by trial court)
- López v. Rodríguez, 121 D.P.R. 23 (1988) (Courts may impute income based on lifestyle, not only declared earnings)
- Arguello v. Arguello, 155 D.P.R. 62 (2001) (Income for support can be imputed from circumstantial evidence and total resources)