Alimony is not automatically awarded to a divorcing spouse as a matter of course. Prior to filing for divorce, a party who desires alimony must ensure the request is included in their divorce filings, or they may forfeit the ability to receive alimony payments. When deciding to award alimony, Rhode Island courts consider several factors. These factors include the duration of the marriage, the current incomes of the parties, the income earning abilities of the parties, the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage, as well as each party’s contributions to the marriage.

Courts will be more likely to award significant alimony awards if they are persuaded that the receiving party contributed to a marriage of significant duration, and would be unable to maintain the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage without an alimony award, If the paying party is able to afford alimony payments while not significantly sacrificing their own standard of living, then an award would be fair and appropriate. Courts are also allowed to consider non-economic factors in determining an alimony award. Allegations of abuse, infidelity, or absence during the marriage may encourage a court to award alimony to a party who may not qualify based on financial considerations alone. Evaluating many of these factors places great discretion with family court judges. The same exact facts and arguments brought before two different judges may end in dramatically different results. Because of this great discretion, it is important for divorcing parties who seek alimony or who are disputing an alimony claim to retain experienced divorce counsel who understands how and why Rhode Island Judges award alimony.

Answering Your Questions about Alimony and Divorce

If you or someone close to you is seeking or anticipating a divorce, there may be an alimony issue even if you don’t see it. Rhode Island courts regularly award alimony to both male and female parties, and a skilled attorney on either side can make the difference between no payments and a substantial award. The experienced Rhode Island family law lawyers with Bilodeau Capalbo understand how to get Rhode Island judges to listen to our arguments surrounding alimony. We have successfully attained significant alimony awards for our clients, and also persuaded courts to deny excessive alimony claims against our clients. If you have questions about alimony or divorce, Bilodeau Capalbo can help answer them. Contact our offices today and schedule a free consultation by calling 401-300-4055.

Divorces are famous for bringing out the worst in people. Now, with rapid growth and innovation in technology, ex-spouses sometimes use these new products in ways that can hurt them in family court. In an attempt to gather evidence, people going through a divorce or considering one are using apps and programs to track each other and get recordings and other evidence to potentially use in court. However, many of these tactics are illegal, and even the ones that are not may hurt your case in family court. An experienced Rhode Island divorce attorney can help you with your case and make sure that you have safeguards in place so that your former spouse cannot gather any information without your knowledge. They can also help you stay within the law and refrain from doing anything that will damage your position.

What is Legal?

Divorce lawyers in Rhode Island have noticed that many of their clients are putting tracking devices in each other’s cars or using apps like the “find my iphone” app to keep tabs on each other. The ubiquity and relative inexpensiveness of these devices has made it much more common for divorcing partners to find out information about each other. Parents are also putting devices like cameras or location tracking on their kids when the children are with the other parent. While the separated individuals may think these tactics will give them evidence that will help them in court, that’s often not the case, and it’s easy to run afoul of the law.

In Rhode Island, it is legal to record someone as long as one of the parties consents and as long as there are no ill-intentioned or criminal purposes for making the recording. However, a law in 2016 makes it illegal to track a vehicle without consent of the owner. While the law was intended for victims of domestic violence, it has been used to prosecute people collecting information for divorce proceedings. Of course, it’s also illegal to alter communications like text messages or recordings to make it seem like someone said or did something that they did not do.

What Will a Family Court Consider?

Family court is very different from criminal court in terms of what the judge can consider when making a decision. For property division during a divorce, the court will look at all of the relevant factors to decide how to divide property and award maintenance (alimony) in an equitable fashion. Equitable does not always mean equal, and the court will look at the spouses’ ability to support themselves independently, the length of the marriage, their standard of living, the resources of each spouse, and any other legally procured evidence if the parties cannot come to a decision themselves. Things are even more complicated when children are involved because judges use the somewhat nebulous standard of “the best interest of the child” to decide how custody should be arranged. Thus, actions that show ill intent, such as cameras all over the house for spying (this actually happened!), may end up hurting your case more than any evidence gathered will help it.

Hire a Rhode Island Divorce Attorney to Help You!

If you are thinking about a divorce or have already separated, you should contact a skilled divorce attorney as soon as possible. They can help you gather evidence in ways that are legal and helpful while at the same time keeping you from running afoul of the law. A knowledgeable Rhode Island divorce attorney can also help you present your case to the judge in a persuasive way, which can be more complex than you may think. The attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, can help you craft a legal and effective strategy for court. Call (401) 300-4055 or use the form on this website to contact us today for a free consultation!

Related Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Hears Common-Law Marriage Case Rhode Island Favors Rehabilitative Alimony

After twenty three years together, an East Providence couple decided to separate. Now that they have broken up, a court is trying to determine if they were in a common-law marriage. We tend to think of marriage in black and white terms: either you’re married or you’re not. But it may not be that simple in Rhode Island.

Common-Law Marriage

In most states this would be pretty straightforward, and the court would look to whether there was a marriage license. However, Rhode Island is one of only a few states that recognizes common law marriage. In order to determine whether a common law marriage exists, many people think there is a specific number of years together that must be met. That’s not true. Rather, the court looks all the relevant factors to determine whether there was a “present mutual intent to be married.” In other words, do both parties consider themselves married to one another? Do they live their lives like they are married and hold themselves out to others as a married couple? A Rhode Island family law attorney will be able to explain all the ins and outs of this unique area of family law.

In this case, the lower court had decided that the couple was in a common-law marriage and the Rhode Island Supreme Court recently heard the appeal to decide whether or not to uphold the decision. The wife/girlfriend of the couple was hoping that they were considered married so she would be entitled to some of the assets the husband/boyfriend earned during the marriage, including profits from selling the house and his retirement fund.

What the Court Will be Assessing

The wife/girlfriend’s attorney argued that the couple was in a common law marriage because her significant other wore a ring on his left hand ring finger, acted as a father figure to her son, listed her as a beneficiary on his insurance policies, marked his status Facebook as “married,” and referred to her as his “common-law wife.” On the other hand, the husband/boyfriend’s attorney argued that they never merged their assets together, and his wife/girlfriend sometimes referred to herself as single.

If you live in Rhode Island and are in a relationship and living with your significant other, there are lessons to be taken from this case. Each situation is different and an experienced Rhode Island divorce attorney can help you with the specifics of your situation, but there are some things that you can do to make sure that you don’t accidentally find yourself “married.” First, you want to make sure that when you talk to others you don’t refer yourself as “married,” if you don’t intend to be viewed as such. This also includes conversations on social media. Second, keep your finances and assets separate. Finally, don’t wear jewelry or other indicators of being married if you don’t want to be treated as a married couple by the law.

While we don’t know how this case will ultimately be resolved, you can make sure that you are never in a position like this by talking with a knowledgeable Rhode Island family law attorney. Call Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, and we can help you understand all the intended and unintended consequences of the choices you make. Call (401) 300-4055 or contact us via our website for your complimentary consultation today!

Related Posts:

Rhode Island Favors Rehabilitative Alimony How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce

The trial court awarded the wife an absolute divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and the husband’s extreme cruelty. The court further awarded the wife custody of their minor child, assigned to the wife the husband’s interest in the marital residence, ordered the husband to pay child support, and required the husband to pay alimony and his wife’s counsel fees. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part but remanded the case for further consideration with respect to the award of alimony. It further vacated the award of counsel fees.

The husband and the wife were married in the summer of 1959 and then had three children together. One of the three children was a minor at the time of the divorce proceedings. According to the testimony, the marriage started to fall apart in 1980. The wife filed for divorce and the parties separated pursuant to an ex parte restraining order issued against the husband.

On appeal, the husband first challenged the trial court’s determination that he was at fault for the devolution of the marriage.

The trial judge found that the husband had physically and verbally abused the wife, was guilty of excessive drinking, and had engaged in extramarital affairs. The trial judge attached no weight to the testimony of the husband’s witnesses who attempted to show that the wife was not faithful after the separation but before the divorce was final.

The state high court first held that the record overwhelmingly established that the trial justice did not err in finding that the husband was at fault.

Second, the husband challenged the award compelling him to assign to his wife his equitable interest in the marital domicile, which he owned with her as a joint tenant. In support, the husband first asserted that Rhode Island’s equitable-distribution statute contains language that should prevent a trial court from assigning all of one spouse’s estate to the other spouse. The state high court dismissed this argument “for the very obvious reason” that the husband’s interest did not make up his entire estate. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the wife a portion of the husband’s estate after considering each element of the statutory criteria of § 15-5-16.1.

The husband further argued that because he earned significantly more money than the wife during the last nine years of the marriage, such increased earnings should have been given more weight in the determination of what had been contributed by each party to the estate. The trial judge, the state high court reasoned, knew that the husband earned more than the wife, and considered with equal weight the value of the wife’s services as a homemaker as well as the money she contributed from various jobs as a nurse. In so doing, the state high court held he committed no error.

The husband next contended the trial justice weighted the element of fault too heavily in deciding the husband’s interest in the marital domicile. The court held that there was nothing in the trial justice’s decision to indicate that fault was given inappropriate significance in deciding the husband’s interest. Thus, this claim lacked merit.

The court next addressed the husband’s claim that the trial judge erred in requiring the husband to pay alimony of $25 a week. The court explained that alimony should be payable for a short, but specific, period of time, which will cease when the recipient is in a position of self-support after exercising reasonable efforts. The court remanded the issue of alimony to the trial judge for reconsideration in accordance with the notion of “rehabilitative alimony.”

The court next turned to the husband’s claim that the trial justice erred in ordering the husband to pay the wife’s counsel fees. In light of the probability that the marital domicile could so be used to generate funds, the court vacated that part of the judgment that ordered the husband to pay the cost of his wife’s attorney fees.

The final issue was the husband’s argument that the trial judge should not have allowed the wife’s eldest son to testify.

At the hearing, the trial justice allowed the testimony of the son de bene. The husband’s counsel objected, arguing that his client would be prejudiced because the son had not been available for deposition, meaning his credibility could not be adequately attacked. The trial judge allowed the witness, reasoning that the wife did not consciously intend to present the son as a surprise witness. Further, he found the son’s testimony to be cumulative.

In light of the limited time the wife had to communicate to the husband regarding the son’s testimony, as well as the fact that such testimony was cumulative, the state high court could held the trial judge did not commit prejudicial error in allowing the son to testify.

Accordingly, the husband’s appeal was denied in part and sustained in part. The judgment with respect to counsel fees was vacated, and the case was remanded to the family court for further consideration on the issue of rehabilitative alimony.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC’s accomplished family law attorneys are prepared to assist Rhode Island residents in navigating issues of alimony during their divorce proceedings. Call 401-300-4055 to schedule a consultation today.

More Blog Posts: In Rhode Island, Negligent Misrepresentation Applies in the Adoption Context Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds That Defendant is Entitled to an Annuity Policy Rhode Island Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Owner in Broken Staircase Injury Lawsuit

Plaintiff and Defendant were married in 1959 and decided to divorce in 1985. They agreed on the the distribution of the marital property and on their respective alimony obligations.

The parties obtained a final divorce judgment from the family court in June 1985. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the family court found the agreement to be fair and equitable. The family court therefore incorporated by reference, but explicitly did not merge, the agreement into the judgment.

In October 1988, the defendant filed a motion for modification of final judgment, to modify his alimony obligations under the final judgment. The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s motion, arguing that the family court could not modify a settlement agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a final divorce judgment. In an order, the family court retroactively modified paragraph 7 of the judgment and paragraph 5 of the agreement. The court further ordered that the defendant’s obligation under paragraphs 7 and 5 of the judgment and the agreement were suspended.

The plaintiff filed for certiorari, making three arguments. First, the family court erroneously construed the defendant’s motion for modification of the final judgment as including a motion to modify. Second, any modification had to be made under contract principles, not the alimony law, because the agreement was not merged into the judgment. Third, the family court failed to properly apply the Bocchino v. Bocchino (1983) standard for modification of alimony under paragraph 7 of the judgment.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff that it was unclear whether the defendant’s motion to modify sought to modify paragraph 7 of the judgment alone, or also paragraph 5 of the agreement. The court then turned to whether the family court could modify a separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged into a final judgment.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that a separation agreement that is not merged into a divorce judgment remains a contract; thus, the family court could not modify alimony in a nonmerged separation agreement. The court explained that it was adhering to centuries of contract theory that the modification of contracts can only be accomplished by the contracting parties.

The state high court next rejected the parties’ premise that the modifiability of the judgment was an independent question from the modifiability of the agreement. The court ruled that where the same subject matter is treated both in a divorce judgment and in a nonmerged separation agreement, the terms as stated in the separation agreement shall be binding and the divorce judgment is not enforceable or modifiable. However, if the judgment explicitly states that the judgment’s treatment of the matter shall have independent validity from the separation agreement, then the judgment shall have such independent validity and can be enforced or modified like the other terms of the judgment.

In the instant case, the court held that the divorce judgment did not have an explicit manifestation of intent that the judgment’s alimony would have independent validity from the agreement’s alimony. Therefore, the court ruled that alimony under the judgment was not modifiable or enforceable.

The court quashed the family court decision with respect to the modification of alimony under both the agreement and the judgment. The papers of the case were remanded to the family court for further proceedings.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, our caring divorce attorneys are ready to help Rhode Island residents handle their family law issues. Call 401-300-4055 or schedule your consultation today.

More Blog Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds That Defendant is Entitled to an Annuity Policy Rhode Island Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Owner in Broken Staircase Injury Lawsuit Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce