Kirk v. Kirk, 90-74-M
Decision Date | 05 July 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 90-74-M,90-74-M |
Citation | 577 A.2d 976 |
Parties | George I. KIRK, Jr. v. Jean KIRK. P. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case is before the court as a certified question of law from the Family Court. The issue is whether personal injury settlements, workers' compensation benefits, and Social Security benefits are marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce pursuant to G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 15-5-16.1. Accordingly we advert to a precis of the facts in order to discuss this issue in depth.
George I. Kirk, Jr. (husband), and Jean Kirk (wife) were married on February 14, 1976. On September 8, 1986, husband filed a complaint for divorce in Family Court, asserting that irreconcilable differences had led to the irremediable breakdown of the marriage. On October 6, 1986, wife counterclaimed on the same grounds.
During the marriage husband was injured in two automobile accidents and in an accident at work. The husband received two lump-sum settlements for the accidents and one lump-sum Social Security benefit payment. He also has been receiving weekly workers' compensation checks.
On February 5, 1990, the parties submitted to the Family Court justice an agreed statement of facts regarding the two personal-injury actions, the workers' compensation action, and the Social Security claim. On February 6, 1990, the Family Court justice requested certification of this case to the court for questions of law.
Section 15-5-16.1 governs the distribution of marital assets by the Family Court. Section 15-5-16.1(a) provides:
The purpose of this statute is "to provide a fair and just assignment of the marital assets * * * on the basis of the joint contribution of the spouses to the marital enterprise." Stanzler v. Stanzler, 560 A.2d 342, 345 (R.I.1989). This statute provides for the equitable distribution of property acquired or owned by either party during the marriage, except that property which is protected by the statutory exemptions. "[T]he acquisition of assets after the irremediable breakdown of a marriage or after a valid complaint for divorce is filed or at any time before final decree for divorce is granted will not have any effect on the applicability of the equitable-distribution statute." Vanni v. Vanni, 535 A.2d 1268, 1270 (R.I.1988).
The first issue we address is whether personal-injury settlements are marital property subject to equitable distribution under § 15-5-16.1. The husband asserts that personal-injury claims are personal and unique to him and that as such they are not marital property subject to distribution.
After our analysis of the differing law of other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue directly, we are persuaded that the purpose of the personal-injury recovery determines whether it is marital property subject to distribution under § 15-5-16.1. A personal-injury settlement constitutes various components of recovery. A settlement represents compensation from a tortfeasor for losses sustained by the injured spouse including pain and suffering, past loss of wages, future loss of wages, past uninsured medical expenses, and future medical expenses. Those components of the personal-injury settlement that replace property acquired or property that would have been acquired during the marriage are marital property under § 15-5-16.1.
In Landwehr v. Landwehr, 111 N.J. 491, 545 A.2d 738 (1988), the Supreme Court of New Jersey found that the State equitable-distribution statute was "not intended to force a victim of personal injuries to share the proceeds he or she receives for the pain and suffering and disabilities arising out of those injuries." Id. at 500-01, 545 A.2d at 743.
Id. at 500, 545 A.2d at 742-43 (quoting Amato v. Amato, 180 N.J. Super. 210, 218, 434 A.2d 639, 643 (1981)).
The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that that portion of a personal injury settlement that was intended to compensate the injured spouse for his or her pain and suffering is not subject to equitable distribution. Id. at 500-01, 545 A.2d at 743.
We find that a pain-and-suffering award of an injured spouse is compensation for or replacement of personal property, that spouse's good health, which was acquired before the marriage. Therefore, that portion of a personal-injury settlement that is intended to compensate an injured spouse for his or her pain and suffering is nonmarital property, not subject to equitable distribution under § 15-5-16.1.
We find, however, that that portion of the personal injury settlement compensating for past loss of wages and past uninsured medical expenses incurred during the marriage, losses that have depleted funds of the marital estate, are marital property subject to equitable distribution under § 15-5-16.1.
A recent decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether that portion of a personal-injury settlement that compensates an injured spouse for future loss of wages, future loss of earning capacity, or future medical expenses is marital property, subject to equitable distribution. Ward v. Ward, 453 N.W.2d 729 (Minn.Ct.App.1990). In Ward the court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lopiano v. Lopiano, (SC 15899)
...317 N.C. 437, 346 S.E.2d 430 (1986) (same); Crocker v. Crocker, 824 P.2d 1117 (Okla. 1991) (workers' compensation benefits); Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976 (R.I. 1990) (personal injury damages and workers' compensation benefits); Hardy v. Hardy, 197 W. Va. 243, 475 S.E.2d 335 (1996) (personal i......
-
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald
...employee for disfigurement and/or loss of use of a limb, such amounts are clearly treated as separate property. See id.; Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976, 979 (R.I.1990); Doucette v. Washburn, 766 A.2d 578, 584-85, n. 12 (Me.2001) (discussing separate property nature of permanent impairment compe......
-
Forrester v. Forrester
...re Marriage of Swan, 301 Or. 167, 720 P.2d 747, 751 (1986); Powell v. Powell, 395 Pa.Super. 345, 577 A.2d 576, 580 (1990); Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976, 980 (R.I.1990); Simmons v. Simmons, 370 S.C. 109, 634 S.E.2d 1, 4 (App.2006), cert. denied (S.C. 2007); Johnson v. Johnson, 734 N.W.2d 801, ......
-
Mistler v. Mistler
...545 A.2d 738 (1988); Rich v. Rich, 126 Misc.2d 536, 483 N.Y.S.2d 150 (Sup.Ct.1984); Johnson, 317 N.C. 437, 346 S.E.2d 430; Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976 (R.I.1990).6 In Kuchta v. Kuchta, 636 S.W.2d 663 (Mo.banc 1982), the court recognized that "a pension is not earned on the last day of employ......
-
§ 12.02 Types of Benefits
...& Steadman, 355 Ore. 104, 322 P.3d 546 (2014); In re Marriage of Swan, 301 Ore. 167, 720 P.2d 747 (1986). Rhode Island: Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976 (R.I. 1990). South Carolina: Simmons v. Simmons, 370 S.C. 109, 634 S.E.2d 1 (2006). Tennessee: Frazier v. Frazier, 17 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1304 (T......
-
§ 8.01 Personal Injury Claims
...118 Ohio App.3d 831, 694 N.E.2d 136 (1997). Oklahoma: Taylor v. Taylor, 827 P.2d 911 (Okla. App. 1992). Rhode Island: Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976 (R.I. 1990). South Dakota: Johnson v. Johnson, 734 N.W.2d 801 (S.D. 2007). West Virginia: Hardy v. Hardy, 186 W. Va. 496, 413 S.E.2d 151 (1991). S......
-
§ 8.02 Workers' Compensation Benefits
...See Cook v. Cook, 102 Idaho 651, 637 P.2d 799 (1981).[204] Schmitz v. Schmitz, 255 Mont. 159, 841 P.2d 496 (1992).[205] Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976 (R.I. 1990).[206] Doucette v. Washburn, 766 A.2d 578 (Me. 2001).[207] See: Delaware: Gloria B. S. v. Richard G. S., 458 A.2d 707 (Del. Fam. 1982......
-
Distributing Personal Injury Settlements and Workers� Compensation Awards in Divorce
...(WC). [47] Taylor v. Taylor, 827 P.2d 911 (Okla.App. 1992) (PI); Crocker v. Crocker, 824 P.2d 1117 (Okla. 1991) (WC). [48] Kirk v. Kirk, 577 A.2d 976 (R.I. 1990) (adopting analytical approach to PI and WC settlements). [49] Marital property includes PI or WC recoveries for “wages lost durin......