Meyer v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 26 June 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 2011–14–Appeal, 2011–15–Appeal, 2011–17–Appeal, 2011–18–Appeal.,s. 2011–14–Appeal, 2011–15–Appeal, 2011–17–Appeal, 2011–18–Appeal.
• Citation: 68 A.3d 571
• Parties: Lori Noel MEYER v. Patrick W. MEYER.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

68 A.3d 571

Lori Noel MEYER

v.Patrick W. MEYER.

Nos. 2011–14–Appeal, 2011–15–Appeal, 2011–17–Appeal, 2011–18–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 26, 2013.

John D. Lynch, Esq., Warwick, for Plaintiff.

John A. MacFadyen III, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Justice ROBINSON, for the Court.

This case is before the Supreme Court on four consolidated appeals filed by the defendant, Patrick W. Meyer (Patrick or defendant).¹ These appeals all stem from a divorce action that was commenced in April of 2009 when the plaintiff, Lori Noel Meyer (Lori or plaintiff), filed a complaint for divorce against the defendant. Patrick presses four issues on appeal: (1) whether or not the trial justice erred in denying Patrick's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which motion contended that Lori was not a resident of Rhode Island in accordance with the pertinent statute; (2) whether or not the trial justice erred in awarding Lori rehabilitative alimony; (3) whether or not the trial justice erred with respect to an award of counsel fees; and (4) whether or not the trial justice erred in his adjudication of Patrick as being in contempt of court. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgments of the Family Court in their entirety.

IFacts and Travel

Patrick and Lori were married on October 1, 2005 in Newport, Rhode Island. Although both had previously been married and children were born of those marriages, they had no children together. Some three-and-one-half years later, on April 22, 2009, Lori filed a complaint for divorce in Kent County Family Court. It is significant that Patrick was personally served in Rhode Island with a summons and the complaint on April 24, 2009. (We note that, after Patrick was served with a summons and the complaint for divorce, he never thereafter personally appeared in the Family Court for any of the several proceedings.) Patrick filed an answer, in which ( inter alia ) he neither admitted nor denied the allegation in the complaint that “Lori Noel Meyer * * * has been a domiciled inhabitant of [Rhode Island] and has resided therein for more than one year next before filing of this Complaint and is now a domiciled inhabitant of [Rhode Island].”

Early in the divorce proceedings, orders entered requiring Patrick to appear for the taking of his deposition. He was additionally ordered to pay Lori $20,000 as an advance of her equitable assignment. On September 9, 2009, Patrick filed a motion to dismiss Lori's complaint for divorce, averring that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction—because, he contended, Lori had not been “a domiciled inhabitant and resident of the State of Rhode Island for one year prior to the filing” of the complaint.

AThe Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

On February 15, 2010, the trial justice presided over a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In the course of being questioned by Patrick's attorney, Lori testified: “I reside at 500 East Greenwich Avenue, * * * West Warwick, Rhode Island.” She added that she had been residing at the same address when she filed her complaint for divorce on April 22, 2009. When asked by Patrick's attorney how long she had been “physically living in the State of Rhode Island” prior to filing the complaint for divorce, Lori responded: “I have always been physically living in the State of Rhode Island. I vacation in France.”

Patrick's attorney then entered into evidence without objection various admissions made in Lori's August 25, 2009 Response to Defendant's Second Request for Admissions. In that document, Lori admitted that she “had been physically present in France” from January 8 to August 8, 2008. Lori also admitted that, from September 3 to November 11, 2008, she had “been physically present in” and “had been living in France.” Additionally, Lori admitted that she returned to Rhode Island from France on November 12, 2008 and had been “living in Rhode Island” since that date. In response to a question posed by Patrick's counsel during the hearing on February 15, 2010, Lori acknowledged that she had been out of this country for approximately 172 days between April of 2008 and April of 2009.

Lori additionally testified that she and Patrick owned a house in the South of France; their goal was to work on that house in order to have a “very large vacation home” there. She added that they had stayed in several rented homes while they were working on that project. Lori explained that her role as an interior designerand project manager for their house in France required her to be “physically present while the project [was] under construction at all times.” She testified that, although she had stayed in France, her “permanent residence has always been West Warwick, Rhode Island.” Lori further testified that her intent with respect to the home in the South of France was to “vacation” there. She explained that she and Patrick did not “have an intention to stay in France any particular amount of time.” She added: “[We intended] to travel extensively and to spend our summers and our holidays here in Rhode Island at our home with our families.”

In addition, Lori testified that she did not own the West Warwick home, but that her father did. She also testified that she had filed state and federal tax returns for tax years 2007 and 2008 and that she used the West Warwick address on those returns. Lori also testified that her voting address was in West Warwick and that she had not, in any documentation, state or federal, listed any other place as her residence and domicile. She further acknowledged that her intent had been to return to Rhode Island and stay in West Warwick after she completed her work on the project in France; she added that, in actuality, her work on the project was never completed.

At the conclusion of that February 15, 2010 hearing, the trial justice issued a decision from the bench. In his summary of the evidence that had been presented during the hearing, the trial justice noted that plaintiff had acknowledged that she “was out of the State of Rhode Island in southern France for 172 days.” In addition, he stated:

“Ms. Meyer stated that at all times relevant hereto, she intended to remain in Rhode Island as a resident. She has filed a tax return for 2008 as a resident of Rhode Island and she has maintained her * * * address as her voting address. The question is did she intend by her time away from the State of Rhode Island to have absented herself from Rhode Island to such a degree that she is no longer a resident herein.

“The [c]ourt is certainly mindful of many people spending the entire year out of the State of Rhode Island. * * * They still remain Rhode Islanders to the core.

“The [c]ourt is satisfied that Ms. Meyer's testimony is credible and that she never intended to be anything other than a resident and domiciliary of Rhode Island despite the fact that she spent 172 days in southern France working on a project for a vacation home that she does, in fact, own with her current husband. The [c]ourt, therefore, finds that there is jurisdiction in the State of Rhode Island and that the Plaintiff's trips to France did not interrupt her residency herein, so the motion to dismiss is denied.” (Emphasis added.)

In an order dated March 9, 2010, the trial justice reduced his ruling to writing as follows:

“1. The [c]ourt heard the testimony of Plaintiff, Lori Noel Meyer, in the above-entitled matter regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The [c]ourt finds the testimony of the Plaintiff to be credible, that she, at all times relevant hereto, intended to be a resident of the State of Rhode Island, County of Kent and that at no time was there intent to live in any other place. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.” (Emphasis added.)

BThe Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Restraining Order

On February 22, 2010, Lori filed an emergency motion, requesting a hearing or a conference with the court. She was seeking an order restraining Patrick from proceeding with a divorce action in any other jurisdiction; she also wanted the order to deny him any affirmative relief until he appeared before the court in the pending divorce action in Rhode Island. On February 24, 2010, a hearing was held on Lori's motion.

Lori testified at the hearing regarding a letter (written in French) dated December 10, 2009 from Patrick's attorney in France. Patrick's Rhode Island attorney asserted that the letter notified Lori that a divorce action was being filed in France. In addition, Patrick's attorney entered into evidence an email from Lori to Patrick requesting Patrick to translate that letter for her. Lori testified that she could read and speak French, but that she could not understand it “verbatim.” When questioned about the December 10 letter, Lori stated:

“[T]here is nothing here that says that they filed a motion for divorce in France. That is not stated in this letter. It is saying we should proceed in France.”

Patrick's attorney then asked her if she knew “that [her] husband was looking to file for a divorce in France.” Lori responded: “I [knew] that he would like to proceed with the divorce in France rather than in the United States. I am aware of that.” Patrick's attorney represented to the court at the February 24 hearing that her client had instructed her “to reiterate that there is already an action previously filed in France.” It should be noted that the record before this Court indicates that formal divorce proceedings were not initiated by Patrick in France until March 21, 2010.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial justice orally enjoined Patrick from proceeding with a divorce action in France. After that hearing on Lori's emergency motion, an order, dated March 16, 2010 nunc pro tunc to March 9, 2010,² entered, which reads, in pertinent...