Opinion ID: 2196616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Equitable Award

Text: Ronald first asserts that the magistrate abused his discretion by awarding 65 percent of the marital estate to Bernadine. In essence, he contends that only those marital relationships plagued by gross marital misconduct or other types of egregious behavior merit such a disproportionately inequitable award. We do not agree. It is well settled that the equitable distribution of marital assets is left to the sound discretion of the trial court which is obligated to consider the factors prescribed by the Legislature in G.L. 1956 § 15-5-16.1. Murphy v. Murphy, 714 A.2d 576, 579 (R.I.1998) (citing Thompson v. Thompson, 642 A.2d 1160, 1162 (R.I.1994); Moran v. Moran, 612 A.2d 26, 33-34 (R.I.1992)). If the trial master did not overlook or misconceive material evidence, and if he [or she] considered all the requisite statutory elements, this [C]ourt will not disturb the trial court's findings. Id. at 579-80 (quoting Thompson, 642 A.2d at 1162). Our review of the trial record before us reveals that the magistrate took great care to weigh all the evidence presented at trial and to consider each of the statutory factors enumerated in § 15-5-16.1 when determining the respective distributive shares of the DiOrio's marital estate. He found that the parties had been married for about thirty-three years, but during the latter stages of the marriage, Ronald became cold and was no [sic] conversant, leading a separate life under the same roof. The negative conduct of Ronald, however, was but one of a number of criteria considered by the magistrate. He observed that, in regard to Bernadine's conduct, [t]he Court heard nothing negative about the Plaintiff   . He also determined that Bernadine was the primary caretaker of the children as well as being responsible for the home while the Defendant was employed full time, and that she made significant efforts toward preserving the marital estate during the last several years of the marriage. Conversely, he found that Ronald had wasted marital assets by refusing to rent out a home on Martha's Vineyard with high rental income potential, instead preferring to reside in that home and obtain low-wage employment on the island. We are of the opinion that the magistrate carefully considered all the necessary statutory factors pursuant to § 15-5-16.1, giving dispositive or controlling weight to no one single factor in arriving at his decision. Therefore, because we believe that the magistrate's review and consideration of the statutory factors was thorough and reasonable, we conclude that he did not abuse his discretion by awarding Bernadine 65 percent of the marital estate.