Bristow v. Bristow

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Bristow v. Bristow

638 A.2d 1055, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 65, 1994 WL 75577

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 24, 1994

DocketNo. 93-198-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 638 A.2d 1055 (Bristow v. Bristow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bristow v. Bristow, 638 A.2d 1055, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 65, 1994 WL 75577 (R.I. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before a panel of the Supreme Court on February 15,1994, pursuant to an order directing the plaintiff to show cause why her appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff appeals from a Family Court decision on the distribution of marital property in this divorce case.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The trial justice’s twenty-six page decision, following a trial over approximately ten days, includes a lengthy review of the facts. In addition the trial justice made the proper considerations in accordance with G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 15-5-16.1 and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence nor make findings that were clearly wrong with respect to defendant’s misconduct, the valuation of his business, and the distribution of marital property. This court does not sit as a trier of fact and will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling as to the division of marital property unless the trial justice was clearly wrong or misconceived or misconstrued the evidence. Cloutier v. Cloutier, 567 A.2d 1131, 1132 (R.I.1989).

Consequently, we deny and dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the Family Court.

WEISBERGER, Acting C.J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This matter came before a panel of the Supreme Court on February 15,1994, pursuant to an order directing the plaintiff to show cause why her appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff appeals from a Family Court decision on the distribution of marital property in this divorce case.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The trial justice’s twenty-six page decision, following a trial over approximately ten days, includes a lengthy review of the facts. In addition the trial justice made the proper considerations in accordance with G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 15-5-16.1 and did not overlook or misconceive material evidence nor make findings that were clearly wrong with respect to defendant’s misconduct, the valuation of his business, and the distribution of marital property. This court does not sit as a trier of fact and will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling as to the division of marital property unless the trial justice was clearly wrong or misconceived or misconstrued the evidence. Cloutier v. Cloutier, 567 A.2d 1131, 1132 (R.I.1989).

Consequently, we deny and dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the Family Court.

WEISBERGER, Acting C.J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 A.2d 1055, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 65, 1994 WL 75577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bristow-v-bristow-ri-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack