Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a Family Court judgment dissolving Raymond and Cindy Boschetto’s marriage and addressing equitable distribution of marital assets and child support. The Court upheld the trial justice’s interpretation of the parties’ premarital agreement, allocation of investment and bank accounts, treatment of expenses related to an unsuccessful property purchase, and $250-per-week child support award.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the premarital agreement required equal division of appreciation and interest in Cindy's 401K account, in addition to contributions made during the marriage.
- Whether the Family Court abused its discretion in declining to offset Cindy's Morgan Stanley withdrawals from the amount subject to equitable distribution.
- Whether the Family Court abused its discretion by treating Ted's $10,000 withdrawal and related expenses for the failed Middletown property transaction as liabilities attributable to him.
- Whether the Family Court abused its discretion by awarding each party the entire balance of his or her individually titled bank account.
- Whether the Family Court abused its discretion in calculating Ted's child-support obligation based in part on his prior employment history and earning capacity.
- Whether Ted preserved a challenge to the restriction of his inquiry into Cindy's conduct and alleged relationship during the marriage.
Holdings
- The premarital agreement's reference to 'all future contributions' unambiguously required equal division of the contributions made by Cindy and her employer during the marriage, but not interest or appreciation in the account.
- The Family Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to distribute the entire appreciation in Cindy's 401K account where the premarital agreement governed the account and the record did not establish what portion of the appreciation was attributable to marital contributions or either spouse's efforts.
- The Family Court acted within its discretion by declining to offset Cindy's $33,600 withdrawal from the Morgan Stanley account, where it found the withdrawal was needed to prosecute the divorce and to maintain housing for the parties.
- The Family Court did not abuse its discretion by treating Ted's $10,000 withdrawal from the joint account and related $7,500 expenses as liabilities attributable to him rather than amounts to be divided equally.
- The Family Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding each party the entire balance of the bank account held in that party's individual name.
- The Family Court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Ted's earning capacity was $120,000 and using that capacity in calculating his $250-per-week child-support obligation.
- Ted waived his appellate challenge to the exclusion of inquiry concerning Cindy's conduct because the reason asserted at trial was impeachment of credibility rather than relevance to equitable distribution.
Key quotations
“In our opinion, the phrase “all future contributions” is unambiguous; its plain meaning refers to the active deposits made to the 401K account by Cindy and by her employer.” (6)
““Marital assets are to be divided equitably, though not necessarily equally.”” (11)
“We have long held that the determination of child support involves the “exercise of [the trial justice’s] discretionary authority[,]” Vieira, 150 A.3d at 618, and “does not rest solely on [a parent’s] present earning capacity.”” (12)
Factual background
Ted and Cindy married in September 2007 after executing a premarital agreement that provided for equal division of specified future contributions to Cindy's investment accounts and waived alimony. They had one daughter, and Cindy was the primary breadwinner while Ted was self-employed. The Family Court awarded joint custody with primary placement to Cindy, ordered Ted to pay $250 per week in child support, and allocated the parties' investment, bank, and other marital assets. Ted challenged several asset allocations and the child-support calculation on appeal.
Procedural history
Ted filed a divorce complaint in Newport County Family Court in June 2015, and Cindy filed a counterclaim seeking divorce-related relief, including custody, relocation, child support, and equitable distribution. After a trial, the Family Court entered a written decision in September 2016, followed by an amended decision pending entry of final judgment in November 2016. Final judgment entered on February 22, 2017, and Ted timely appealed. The Supreme Court summarily decided the appeal after directing the parties to show cause why further briefing or argument was necessary, and affirmed.
Remand instructions
The record was ordered returned to the Family Court.