Legal Insights
In a 17-page decision issued on Friday, July 17, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a Family Court Judgment obtained on behalf of a client of DarrowEverett’s Private Client Group.
That decision, Constantino v Orban, affirms a Rhode Island Family Court judgment obtained by DarrowEverett trial attorneys Tim Conlon and Sarah Oster Kelly which addressed the issue of what is and is not part of the marital estate — and awarded substantial attorney’s fees to a client against a pro se litigant for abuse of process.
It is the third appellate victory secured by the DarrowEverett team in the last 9 days.
Statement from DarrowEverett Partner Tim Conlon on the Case
Conlon explains the significance of the decision in the Rhode Island practice:
This case was tried over several days and included, among other things, testimony from an estate administrator. That testimony was offered simply to establish that what is commonly referred to in this state as a ‘probate deed’ does not transmute property inherited from an estate into a ‘purchase’ during the marriage merely because, pursuant to local custom and law, a nominal consideration is recited in the deed and transfer taxes are paid by the estate. Husband’s claim that our client ‘bought’ the property, and therefore did not inherit it, was representative of the abusive arguments asserted throughout the proceedings.
As the Supreme Court noted, the trial justices’ findings were damning, citing “specious arguments and filings,” “for which there was no reasonable legal or factual basis,” in violation of Rule 11 and our statute that prohibits abuse in litigation — § 9-29-21. The Supreme Court also noted that Husband “did not make any reasonable inquiry about the nature of or language used in Brazilian transfer deeds, and to the contrary, it was clear to the [c]ourt from the evidence presented that Wife’s Counsel did”, and that Husband’s arguments “lacked any reasonable factual basis or merit under well-established R.I. law.”
Of particular note is the message behind one finding in particular: “The extended and protracted litigation was due solely to Husband’s personal belief that it was unfair to him that Wife had a large inheritance from her parents and she was unwilling to share it with him, regardless of whether he had a reasonable legal or factual basis to assert his claim”
Finally, the Court affirmed an award of $74,680 against the pro se litigant based on a finding that: “The counsel fees sought were reasonable and necessary for the volume, nature, and complexity of the work performed[.]”
Conlon put that award in context:
The judicial system generally, and the Family Court in particular, is finding more and more cases handled by pro se litigants. The Court’s rules apply to all litigants of course, and abusive litigation by pro se litigants unfairly burdens the Court and the party that follows the rules. This decision is significant in that it sends a strong message that pro se litigants that ignore well-established law and Court rules and obstructs the litigation process do so at their own substantial peril.
This appellate victory at the Rhode Island Supreme Court is the third in the last nine days earned by members of the DarrowEverett Private Client Group team. On July 8, Partner Nick Hemond prevailed in an appeal involving whether winnings from a scratch-off lottery ticket should be considered part of a marital estate. And on July 14, Hemond and Senior Associate Laura Nicholson secured a successful appeal on behalf of homeowners in a private nuisance dispute involving interference with the use and enjoyment of their property. After obtaining a preliminary injunction in Superior Court, the firm successfully defended that relief on appeal, preserving the protections previously awarded to its clients.