Opinion ID: 2196616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ronald's Underemployment and Future Earnings Potential

Text: We are of a similar belief that the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by finding that Ronald was underemployed at the time of trial. Ronald asserts that the magistrate failed to take into account a pending criminal indictment for fraud against him, which he asserts rendered him effectively unemployable. He further contends that, as a result of that indictment, he may be liable for approximately $160,000 previously received in pension money, thereby potentially reducing his future earnings. Besides the indictment, Ronald argues that his accrued seniority as a school teacher, far from being a boon or benefit to him, would require a school district employer to pay him more than an entry level candidate, further detracting from his employability. This Court will not disturb findings of fact made by a trial justice or magistrate in a divorce action unless he or she has misconceived the relevant evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong. Murphy, 714 A.2d at 580 (quoting Wrobleski v. Wrobleski, 653 A.2d 732, 734 (R.I.1995)). We are of the opinion that the magistrate's findings concerning Ronald's underemployment and future earnings capacity were not clearly wrong. We note from the trial record that the magistrate carefully considered and weighed Ronald's age, health, education and employment history before determining that with some effort [he] would be in a position to earn much more than his present income of $8 per hour as a rental car agency employee. Based on the record before us, we determine Ronald's contention in this regard to be without merit.