Preview:

Supreme Court No. 2005-338-Appeal. (W 02-628)

Laureen A. DeAngelis v. Peter E. DeAngelis.

: : :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone 2223258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published

Supreme Court No. 2005-338-Appeal. (W 02-628)

Laureen A. DeAngelis v. Peter E. DeAngelis.

: : :

Present: Williams, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Suttell, and Robinson, JJ. OPINION Justice Robinson for the Court. The defendant, Peter E. DeAngelis (defendant or Peter), appeals from a Family Court judgment that awarded the plaintiff, Laureen A. DeAngelis (plaintiff or Laureen), 80 percent of the marital assets. On appeal, defendant argues (1) that the trial justice erred in ruling that defendant was not entitled to any portion of plaintiff's disability pension and (2) that the trial justice erred in his ultimate division of the marital assets. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Family Court. Facts and Travel Peter and Laureen were married on February 16, 1975; they are the parents of two adult children, Amanda and Matthew. In November of 2002, Laureen filed a complaint for divorce, and shortly thereafter Peter filed a counterclaim for divorce. At the trial in Family Court, which was held over seven days in late January and early February of 2005, Laureen, Peter, their two children, and one other witness testified; additionally, more than fifty documents were

-1-

introduced as exhibits. On June 15, 2005, the trial justice issued his bench decision, in which he made the following findings of fact. Laureen had been employed as a public school teacher in South Kingstown for many years before she was diagnosed with breast cancer in February of 2000. Her illness has involved numerous hospitalizations and surgeries, and it is ongoing. In 1996, Peter and Laureen were on the verge of seeking a divorce. Peter had not been living in the marital home for almost two years. According to Laureen's testimony in the instant case, Peter had been verbally abusive to her; moreover, Peter admitted to having engaged in extramarital affairs. When Peter requested permission to return to the marital home, several conversations took place between Peter and Laureen. In May of 1996, there was a family meeting regarding Peter's request. That meeting was attended by Peter, Laureen, and the two children. It was Laureen's testimony that, during this meeting, she agreed to allow Peter back into the marital home if he fulfilled three conditions: (1) continued alcohol treatment counseling; (2) contribution to family expenses; and (3) waiver of any claim to Laureen's pension. Laureen and the two children testified that Peter assented to these three conditions. Peter, for his part, acknowledged that the family meeting had taken place and that he had agreed to the first two conditions, but he denied that they had discussed any waiver of his interest in Laureen's pension. Shortly after the family meeting, Peter returned to the marital home. In November of 2002, Laureen and Peter separated for the final time. Laureen obtained a restraining order against Peter, which order called for his removal from the family home and prohibited him from having any contact with Laureen. Thereafter, in June of 2003, after twenty-six and one-half years of service as a public school teacher, Laureen applied for a disability pension on the ground that her illness and the

-2-

resulting medical treatments prevented her from continuing her employment. She did not notify Peter about her application for that pension.1 At that time, Laureen was out of work and facing economic hardship, and Peter was not providing any support.2 disability pension payments in October of 2003. On September 28, 2005, the trial justice issued a decision pending entry of final judgment. The defendant filed his notice of appeal on October 12, 2005. Shortly thereafter, on October 21, 2005, final judgment was entered.3 Standard of Review The equitable distribution of property in a divorce action involves three steps: (1) determining which assets are marital property; (2) considering the factors set forth in G.L. 1956

Download 05-338.pdf

Rhode Island Law