Opinion ID: 2716904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: A marriage settlement agreement “that is not merged into a divorce judgment retains the characteristics of a contract.” Riffenburg v. Riffenburg, 585 A.2d 627, 630 (R.I. 1991). “The existence of ambiguity in a contract is a question of law.” Paul v. Paul, 986 A.2d 989, 993 (R.I. 2010) (citing Young v. Warwick Rollermagic Skating Center, Inc., 973 A.2d 553, 558 (R.I. 2009)). “[T]he holding of a trial court (including the Family Court) about the existence or nonexistence of ambiguity in the terms of the contract is freely reviewable by this Court.” Id. -4- (quoting Gorman v. Gorman, 883 A.2d 732, 738 n.8 (R.I. 2005)). Therefore, the trial justice’s conclusions on questions of law are reviewed de novo. Beacon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Spino Brothers, Inc., 11 A.3d 645, 649 (R.I. 2011) (citing International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. City of East Providence, 989 A.2d 106, 108 (R.I. 2010)). Conversely, we afford deference to the trial justice’s findings of fact and will disturb them only if she “misconceived the relevant evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong.” Horton v. Horton, 891 A.2d 885, 888 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Koutroumanos v. Tzeremes, 865 A.2d 1091, 1097 (R.I. 2005)). III