Ruffel v. Ruffel

• Decision Date: 28 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2004-6-Appeal.,2004-6-Appeal.
• Citation: 900 A.2d 1178
• Parties: Rosemarie RUFFEL v. Lance RUFFEL.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

900 A.2d 1178

Rosemarie RUFFEL v. Lance RUFFEL.

No. 2004-6-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 28, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lauren E. Jones, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.

Robert S. Parker, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION

Justice SUTTELL, for the Court.

The plaintiff, Rosemarie Ruffel, appeals a December 29, 2003 Family Court order resolving all financial aspects of her divorce with the defendant, Lance Ruffel. Rosemarie contests the Family Court's rulings concerning the equitable distribution of the marital estate, valuation of the marital assets, certain evidentiary issues, and the failure to award rehabilitative alimony and counsel fees. For the reasons set forth herein, we vacate the order and remand the case to the Family Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I Facts and Procedural History

The parties were married on July 26, 1997. It was the second marriage for both, and there were no children born of the union. By all accounts, this marriage was troubled from its inception. As the Family Court general magistrate aptly noted, "[i]n hindsight this marriage was a disaster waiting to happen." Indeed, after only three years of marriage, Rosemarie filed for divorce, but dismissed the complaint after the parties reconciled. She filed a second complaint in October 2001.

The Family Court bifurcated the divorce proceedings, granting an absolute divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences that had caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage on May 9, 2002, and reserving all remaining issues, including equitable distribution and alimony, to be determined at a later date. A "final judgment" was entered on December 16, 2002. Thereafter, the financial aspects of the marital dissolution were tried before the general magistrate between May 21, 2003 and September 3, 2003. On November 26, 2003, the general magistrate rendered a bench decision, which was reflected in an "ORDER FROM DECISION OF NOVEMBER 26, 2003," entered on December 29, 2003.

Intense acrimony between the parties is evident from the record, and it appears that at no time was this marriage harmonious. The parties participated in counseling throughout the marriage, touching on such issues as Rosemarie's adult son living with the parties, Rosemarie's desire to work, whether a closet door should be open or closed while they slept, sex, jealousy, and Rosemarie's attention to her dying dog. Whether the parties would reside in Rhode Island or Oklahoma was another continuing matter of discord. Rosemarie testified that she and Lance had agreed to reside in Rhode Island and travel periodically to and from Oklahoma to attend to Lance's business interests there. Lance testified that his many attempts to get Rosemarie to spend more time with him in Oklahoma during the marriage were futile.

Before the marriage, Lance had acquired interests in Lance Ruffel Oil & Gas Corporation and Rolling Rock, LLC, both Oklahoma corporations. Also before the marriage, Lance purchased a home at 34 Sage Drive in Cranston, Rhode Island. The title was held in both Lance's name and Rosemarie's maiden name as joint tenants. The couple furnished the home together, and they added improvements to the property, including an additional garage and a sunroom, both before and during the marriage. Also, before the parties wed, Lance gave Rosemarie certain jewelry and an overriding royalty interest in an oil well known as Alliance.¹

During the marriage, the couple traveled extensively and lived a comfortable lifestyle. According to Rosemarie, although the couple dined out frequently, she regularly entertained Lance's friends and associates and assisted with his business interests, including decorating his office in Oklahoma. The primary source of income during the marriage was Lance's oil and gas holdings, with a much lesser amount being derived from Rosemarie's interest in the Alliance oil well. During most of the marriage, Rosemarie did not work outside the home, instead pursuing various educational and business endeavors mostly financed by Lance's income. Both parties presented evidence of bad conduct during the marriage, each party contentiously faulting the other for the marriage's dissolution.

In a bench decision on November 26, 2003, the general magistrate found that the marital estate subject to distribution consisted of the following: (1) the real estate at 34 Sage Drive, Cranston, Rhode Island; (2) a condominium in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that the parties purchased together during the marriage; (3) the appreciation in value of a condominium in Copper Mountain, Colorado, that Lance bought before the marriage; (4) the appreciation in value of defendant's premarital interest in Lance Ruffel Oil & Gas Corporation; (5) the appreciation in value of defendant's premarital interest in Rolling Rock, LLC; (6) defendant's working and overriding interests;² (7) plaintiff's overriding royalty interest in the Alliance oil well; (8) certain stock, retirement, bank, and IRA accounts; and (9) certain tangible assets, including an automobile, household furniture, art, jewelry, and furs.

In applying the factors enumerated in G.L.1956 § 15-5-16.1,³ the statute that governs equitable distribution, the general magistrate made findings that: the marriage was relatively short, Rosemarie "made no contribution monetary or otherwise" to the marital estate, both parties were in good health and had the opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets and income, and Lance had contributed to increasing Rosemarie's earning power by paying for her schooling. The general magistrate also found that "[t]he major problems in the marriage were all of [p]laintiff's choosing," specifically her concerns about her dog dying, her refusal to have her adult son move out of the marital domicile, her refusal to leave Rhode Island, and her relationship with a third-party male over a long period.

The general magistrate calculated the value of the marital estate to be $1,220,310.07. Based on the evidence presented, he ordered a distribution entitling Rosemarie to 20 percent and Lance to 80 percent of the marital estate. As part of her share of the estate, the Family Court awarded plaintiff her interest in the Alliance oil well, jewelry, and fur coats. With these items and an advance that she previously received factored into her 20 percent share, the general magistrate determined that Rosemarie owed Lance $27,530 in cash after the distribution. He also denied plaintiff's requests for alimony and counsel fees. An order was entered on December 29, 2003, from which Rosemarie timely appealed.

II Standard of Review

"This Court's `review of a decision of a [F]amily [C]ourt justice is deferential. We do not disturb the trial justice's findings of fact unless it can be shown that he or she has overlooked or misconceived relevant and material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong.'" Brown v. Jordan, 723 A.2d 799, 800 (R.I. 1998) (mem.) (quoting Oduyingbo v. Oduyingbo, 685 A.2d 280, 280 (R.I.1996) (mem.)). When parties contest the equitable distribution of marital assets, "this [C]ourt will not disturb the trial justice's findings where he or she has scrupulously considered all of the elements set forth in * * * § 15-5-16.1." Tarro v. Tarro, 485 A.2d 558, 560 (R.I.1984). "Conversely, an order of distribution of marital assets will be vacated and the case remanded for a rehearing where the trial justice overlooks salient uncontradicted evidence in determining the amount of assets to be distributed." Stephenson v. Stephenson, 811 A.2d 1138, 1142 (R.I.2002).

III Discussion

A. The Proper Date for Valuation of Assets

It is well established in Rhode Island that "[t]he equitable-distribution process requires three steps. First, the trial justice must determine which of the parties' assets are marital property and which are nonmarital property. Second, the trial justice must consider the factors enumerated in § 15-5-16.1. Third, he or she must distribute the marital property." Vanni v. Vanni, 535 A.2d 1268, 1270 (R.I. 1988). The threshold issue raised in the present appeal concerns the first step of this process. We must determine the proper "terminal date" of this marriage for the purpose of identifying which assets were eligible for equitable distribution. See id. Rosemarie contends that the Family Court erred by limiting evidence of the valuation of marital assets to December 31, 2001, based on an alleged agreement between the parties that plaintiff disputed ever occurred, rather than using the date that the final divorce decree was entered, December 16, 2002, as the terminal date for equitable distribution.

In this state, "parties to a divorce action remain as husband and wife until the entry of the final decree of divorce." Vanni, 535 A.2d at 1270. Accordingly, this Court repeatedly has reaffirmed that assets acquired at any time until the entry of a final divorce decree are marital property subject to equitable distribution. See, e.g., Gervais v. Gervais, 688 A.2d 1303, 1308 (R.I.1997); Giha v. Giha, 609 A.2d 945, 948-49 (R.I.1992); Saback v. Saback, 593 A.2d 459, 461 (R.I.1991); Vanni, 535 A.2d at 1270. The final decree date is the terminal date for equitable distribution "absent an express agreement to the contrary." Janson v. Janson, 773 A.2d 901, 904 (R.I.2001).

Parties may make an express agreement to change the terminal date for equitable distribution under Rule 1.4 of the Family Court Rules of Practice, which provides: "All agreements of parties or attorneys touching the business of the court shall be in writing, unless orally made or assented to by them in the presence of the court when disposing of such business, or they will be considered of no validity." (Emphases added.) Although this Court has not had occasion to address this particular Family Cour...