Opinion ID: 2271826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Evidence of Dorothy's Dissipation of the Marital Estate

Text: In April 1987, after wearying of the travel required of him in his position in the corporate world, Andrew established his own telemarketing business, which was incorporated in Rhode Island as Connect Corporation. Andrew was president of Connect Corporation and was its majority shareholder. At the corporation's inception, Dorothy contributed to the venture by typing proposals at [her] kitchen table. [7] Dorothy was employed by Connect Corporation in various capacities in what she described as support positions. She also served as treasurer of Connect Corporation from 1994 to 1996. Eventually, she became a shareholder in Connect Corporation. In August 1995, Andrew desired to computerize Connect Corporation's office in Rhode Island. Although Dorothy was reluctant to upgrade the business's technology before it was necessary, Connect Corporation took out a loan from Citizens Bank to purchase the new equipment, and Dorothy and Andrew personally guaranteed the loan. In 1995, Connect Research was incorporated in Rhode Island. Dorothy served as secretary for Connect Research and later as its treasurer. Her sister, Rose Marie Hurrell, was president of Connect Research from February 1995 until August 1996, and she also held a 55 percent ownership interest. [8] As president, Ms. Hurrell hired a separate accounting firm in New York, and she maintained the corporation's books and records. Ms. Hurrell testified that she established a bank account for Connect Research with a New York bank and that she deposited into that account money that she had withdrawn from Connect Research's Rhode Island account. In what she described as an effort to take control of Connect Research, Andrew filed a lawsuit against Ms. Hurrell in Rhode Island and alleged that she had misappropriated funds. [9] Andrew said that he believed that Dorothy was involved with her sister in the embezzlement of company funds. In July 1996, Andrew sought to refinance Connect Corporation with Citizens Bank, but Dorothy declined to participate in the refinancing effort and would not take part in discussions with the bank. [10] As a result, Andrew was unable to obtain alternative financing. This, he contends, contributed in part to the corporation filing for receivership in 1997. Andrew argues that the trial justice failed to consider Dorothy's actions, which he contends precipitated their business's insolvency, when she assigned to Dorothy 50 percent of the marital estate. In particular, Andrew contends that Dorothy's refusal to cooperate in settling the Citizens Bank debt, her filing for personal bankruptcy, [11] and her dismantl[ing] of Connect Research in concert with her sister destroyed the parties' finances. In response, Dorothy argues that Andrew's version of the facts omits the fact that Andrew lacked control of Connect Research both before and after Dorothy had already filed her divorce petition, and that Dorothy did not discuss a plan to divorce him with her sister because their April 1996 meeting occurred after she already had filed for divorce. Further, she maintains that it actually was Andrew who dismantled Connect Research because he engaged in expensive litigation in an effort to wrest control of Connect Research from Hurrell. Thus, Dorothy maintains, the trial justice's findings of fact were not clearly wrong and her distribution of the marital estate on a 50-50 basis should be upheld. The trial justice found that there were no allegations of misconduct against [Dorothy], other than her husband's belief that she was not supportive of Connect Corp. She said she was unclear as to whether [Andrew] believed his wife knew that her sister, Hurrell, had transferred approximately $160,000 to a New York bank account from Connect Research's Rhode Island account. [12] Additionally, the trial justice also found that Dorothy was evasive when cross-examined regarding Connect Research. Further, the trial justice acknowledged Dorothy's failure to participate in settling the debt with Citizens Bank when she assigned half that outstanding liability to Dorothy. It is our opinion that these findings are supported by the record, and that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive the evidence, nor was she clearly wrong. 4