Opinion ID: 2085235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Deferring the Sale of the Marital Domicile

Text: The plaintiff also assigns error to the trial justice's decision to defer the sale of the marital home. The trial justice found that it was in the children's best interests to reside with their mother in the marital domicile and that [t]o uproot them from their home at this time would be in the Court's view, unconscionable. The trial justice stated that he would make financial orders to assist the parties in making it financially feasible for the children to remain in the marital domicile at this time. He acknowledged that Giselda's parents had offered continued financial assistance if the sale of the home was deferred. John argues that because this decision failed to account for his unemployment, it resulted in undue hardship. Giselda responds that the trial justice properly considered John's potential contribution, her parents' offer to provide financial assistance, and the best interests of the children, and therefore his decision deferring the sale should be upheld. A trial justice may allow a temporary delay in the sale of the marital residence and grant temporary exclusive use of the home to the custodial parent `to minimize the adverse effect of divorce on the welfare of the children.' Malouin, 735 A.2d at 210 (quoting § 15-5-16.1.1). [11] However, the trial justice first must determine whether the parties realistically can afford to do so. Id. at 210-11 (citing § 15-5-16.1.1). Only after first finding that it is economically feasible to defer the sale of the home, may the trial justice consider the best interests of the children. Section 15-5-16.1.1(b). The decision to grant or deny a request to defer the sale of the marital domicile rests within the sound discretion of the Family Court. Malouin, 735 A.2d at 211 (citing § 15-5-16.1.1). In the case before us, we note that the sale of the home was deferred until the earliest occurrence of a list of conditions, including January 1, 2010. [12] Thus, because of the unacceptable delay in the resolution of this case, January 1, 2010, one of the conditions for the sale of the home, nearly is upon us. We therefore decline to disturb this ruling, and direct that the marital home be sold on or about January 1, 2010. Nonetheless, we pause to note that the trial justice performed the analysis required by § 15-5-16.1.1(b) in reverse order. Specifically, the trial justice first determined that it would be in the best interests of the children to remain in the marital home and then declared that he would fashion an order to ensure that it was economically feasible to defer the sale. Section 15-5-16.1.1(b) does not contemplate a make-it-fit approach to this difficult decision; the statute explicitly directs a trial justice first to determine feasibility and then, and only then, may he or she consider the best interests of the children. Although it is clear to us that the trial justice understandably considered it best for the children to remain in the family home, in light of the financial resources of the parties, it is obvious that this decision was neither feasible nor correct. By conducting the analysis in the reverse order, a trial justice risks imposing undue economic burdens on one or both parties to achieve a desirable, but impossible, result.