Opinion ID: 1039019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 691, 692 (R.I. 1997) (mem.).

Text: The documentary evidence in this case leaves no doubt that the transfer of stock to James was a sale. The terms “purchase” and “sale” that are used in James’s offer and the trustees’ acceptances are unambiguous and are not “reasonably susceptible of different constructions.” Paul v. Paul, 986 A.2d 989, 993 (R.I. 2010) (quoting Andrukiewicz v. Andrukiewicz, 860 A.2d 235, 238 (R.I. 2004)). Thus, the intent behind the transaction was irrelevant. Vincent Co., 683 A.2d at 363. - 30 - Furthermore, this Court has held that, where a transfer was made to appear like a sale and included all indicia of a sale, it was not erroneous for the trial justice to rule that the transaction was, in fact, a sale, regardless of the parties’ ulterior intent. Gervais v. Gervais, 688 A.2d 1303, 1305-06 (R.I. 1997). 10 In Gervais, the husband in a divorce proceeding argued that certain disputed “assets were derived from the sale of a company that he had acquired by virtue of two separate gifts of stock,” and, therefore, he maintained that the assets were not marital property. Id. at 1305. The husband “contend[ed] this last transfer was made to appear like a sale in order to avoid federal gift and estate taxes but that it was in reality a gift in disguise.” Id. (emphasis added). Nevertheless, this Court found no error in the trial justice’s ruling that the transfer of stock was a sale—not a gift—because, regardless of the husband’s intent, “the transfer at its inception had all indicia of a sale.” Id. at 1306. Therefore, based on the precedent set forth in Gervais and the unambiguous terminology used in the transaction, any possible hidden intent of the parties is irrelevant to the analysis of whether the Microfibres stock constituted marital property and, thus, there was no genuine issue of material fact. As a result, the trial justice did not err when he granted partial summary judgment in favor of Hope and held that the Microfibres stock was marital property. IV