Opinion ID: 2271826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Evidence of Andrew's Payment of Marital Debt

Text: On April 25, 1996, Dorothy secured an ex parte restraining order, which provided that the parties were not precluded from paying bills and/or operating the parties' business entities in the ordinary course of business. Subsequently, on May 3, 1996, Dorothy obtained a preliminary injunction that vacated the ex parte restraining order and said that the parties may incur and shall pay all of those marital bills, debts, charges, and other obligations as they have in the past with each party contributing    in the same approximate percentage that said party had maintained prior to the parties' separation. As a result, Andrew's and Dorothy's salaries, at that time $300,000 and $140,000 respectively, continued to be deposited into their joint account, over which Dorothy maintained control. In her decision, the trial justice acknowledged that the restraining order prevented Andrew from getting access to their joint accounts; indeed, she found that Andrew was effectively hobbled as a result of the injunctive relief. The trial justice noted that, as a result, Dorothy was left with the duty to pay the expenses. Andrew argues that the trial justice erred when she did not consider Andrew's payment of the marital debt and obligations from April 1996 until June 2002. He contends that these contributions properly should have resulted in an equitable distribution award more favorable to him; he suggests that a grant to him of 60 percent of the marital estate, rather than 50 percent, would be more appropriate. Dorothy maintains that Andrew's assertion that he satisfied all the couples' financial obligations during this time period is inaccurate. In our opinion, the trial justice did not misconceive or overlook material evidence, specifically evidence of the manner in which the marital debt was paid. When she considered the required statutory factors, many other aspects of the parties' relationship entered into her calculus when she divided the marital estate equally, including the couple's long marriage spanning thirty-seven years, their mutual contributions in raising their three children, that both worked long and hard on Connect Corporation, and also Andrew's concession that he verbally abused Dorothy. [13] We afford her findings their due weight and decline to disturb her distribution of 50 percent of the marital estate to Andrew, rather than the 60 percent he contends would have been most proper. 5