Opinion ID: 2271826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: 7259 Shore Road

Text: After they married, the Currys lived in Brooklyn, N.Y. In 1981, the family moved to Narragansett, R.I. However, they retained ownership of the co-op apartment at 7259 Shore Road, Brooklyn, N.Y. The trial justice found that the co-op at 7259 Shore Road was a marital asset and awarded Andrew all right, title, interest, and ownership to the co-op, subject to his paying to Dorothy one-half of the equity in the unit. Andrew argues that the trial justice erred when she assigned Dorothy one-half of the equity in the co-op at 7259 Shore Road because Dorothy relinquished any interest that she had in that property when she filed for personal bankruptcy and thus, under bankruptcy law, she no longer had any legal or equitable interest in it whatsoever. Conversely, Dorothy argues that the trial justice did not err when she awarded Andrew the co-op while at the same time awarding half its value to Dorothy, because the co-op remains in Andrew's possession and was purchased with marital funds. After careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that the trial justice was not clearly wrong when she divided the equity in the Shore Road property between the parties. Although Dorothy's bankruptcy filing divested her of any legal and equitable interest in the co-op, Andrew's reliance on In re Robison, 74 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D.Mo.1987) to support his contention that the trial justice erred when she assigned Dorothy interest in the property is misplaced. The court in Robison, 74 B.R. at 648, held that Chapter 7 debtors have no right to sell property in their bankruptcy estates because they do not have incentive to maximize the sales price as would the bankruptcy trustee. But here, Dorothy is not attempting to sell the coop and we believe that the trial justice was correct when she distributed half its value to Dorothy as marital property. Moreover, we have held that although a bankruptcy court's order may be final between the debtor and third parties, the order is not final concerning divorcing spouses. Hopkins v. Hopkins, 487 A.2d 500, 504 (R.I.1985). Thus, the Family Court is free to distribute marital property or debt between divorcing spouses despite the existence of a bankruptcy court order divesting one of them of an interest in the property. See id. The record shows that the parties lived as husband and wife at the Brooklyn property and raised their children there before they moved to Rhode Island. Additionally, the parties retained the residence after their move to Rhode Island and used marital funds to purchase it in 1987. We cannot say that the trial justice overlook[ed] salient uncontradicted evidence when she determined the co-op to be marital property and assigned Dorothy a one-half interest in its equity. Ruffel, 900 A.2d at 1184.