Opinion ID: 1983357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Impartiality of Trial Master

Text: Our examination of the record suggests that the general master did not act with impartiality in issuing his findings and orders in this case. [1] Such absence of impartiality will justify relief when the party seeking the relief can establish that the trial justice had personal bias or prejudice by reason of a preconceived or settled opinion of a character calculated to impair his impartiality seriously and to sway his judgment. Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 118 R.I. 608, 621, 375 A.2d 911, 917 (1977) (citing State v. Buckley, 104 R.I. 317, 322, 244 A.2d 254, 257 (1968)). In the instant matter, the general master indicated his disapproval of defendant throughout his findings of fact. He indicated, for example, that he found defendant's marital conduct to be nothing less than horrendous, that he had difficulty in believing any of the testimony of the defendant    and/or the believability in any documents filed by defendant, that defendant had made every conceivable attempt to delay, confuse, and twist these divorce and trial proceedings, and that he viewed all testimony presented by defendant as a colossal attempt to defraud the Court and plaintiff. In addition, during the trial the general master expressed his opinion that defendant was a liar and a bigamist. Although we recognize that the vitriol of this case and the behavior of defendant contributed to the general master's frustration, we are led to conclude that the general master's lack of impartiality did prejudice defendant. Therefore, we direct that the following issues be scheduled for retrial before a different judicial officer of the Family Court: (1) the amount of child support to be awarded prospectively from the date of this opinion, (2) the appropriate assignment of ownership of all property involving intervenor Nancy Mattera, and (3) the proper distribution of all marital property except the marital domicile, which, in the interest of the child, will remain in plaintiff's ownership and will be deducted from plaintiff's award. In summary, we affirm the granting of the divorce, the award of the marital domicile to the plaintiff, the award of sole custody of the child to the plaintiff, the provision of health care coverage, and the trial court's order that the defendant pay $45,000 in child-support arrearages. We remand the case to the Family Court for retrial on the assignment of all marital property involving the alleged interests of Nancy Mattera and for the determination of future child support at a level consistent with the child-support guidelines. Because a sufficient question exists regarding the general master's impartiality in this case, we direct that the issues on retrial be heard before a different judicial officer. The issue of counsel fees shall also be reconsidered at the retrial, in light of any changes in the assignment of marital property. The papers in the case may be returned to the Family Court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.