Terry Ann Smith v. Andrew Smith
This text of Terry Ann Smith v. Andrew Smith (Terry Ann Smith v. Andrew Smith) 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.
Opinion
Supreme Court
No. 2024-12-Appeal. (P 14-2875)
Terry Ann Smith :
v. :
Andrew Smith. :
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court on November 7, 2024, pursuant to
an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this
appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and
oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been
shown and that this appeal may be decided without further briefing or argument. For
the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the order of the Family Court.
This case is yet another chapter in a prolonged and contentious divorce dispute
between defendant Andrew Smith (defendant or Andrew) and his former spouse,
plaintiff Terry Ann Smith (plaintiff or Terry Ann).1 The procedural history and
factual background of this case have been addressed in our previous decisions; we
1 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion; we intend no disrespect. -1- therefore recite only the facts relevant to the instant appeal. Smith v. Smith, 252 A.3d
246, 247 (R.I. 2021) (mem.) (Smith II); see also Smith v. Smith, 207 A.3d 447,
448-49 (R.I. 2019) (Smith I); Smith v. Smith, 268 A.3d 563, 563 (R.I. 2022) (mem.)
(Smith III); Smith v. Smith, 293 A.3d 305, 305 (R.I. 2023) (mem.) (Smith IV).
“On December 18, 2017, three years after the initial complaint was filed and
after testimony spanning five months, the trial justice granted both parties an
absolute divorce and issued a ninety-five-page written decision.” Smith I, 207 A.3d
at 449. In her decision, “[t]he trial justice made 113 findings of fact as to the
procedural history of the case.” Id. Thereafter, plaintiff sought sanctions pursuant
to Rule 11 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure against
defendant, and the trial justice concluded that given “defendant’s vexatious filing of
baseless motions for the sole purpose and intent to harass the plaintiff and dissipate
the marital assets, defendant had violated Rule 11, and, thus, ordered [defendant] to
pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
In further consideration of the distribution of marital assets, “the trial justice made
ninety-seven additional findings of fact,” and concluded that defendant willfully
depleted marital assets and interfered with “plaintiff’s efforts to preserve the value
of the marital assets * * *.” See id. The trial justice therefore equitably awarded
plaintiff a greater share of the marital assets than she awarded to defendant. See id.
After several appeals from orders of the Family Court, defendant once again,
-2- “appeal[ed] pro se from a Family Court order denying his motion to reopen his
divorce action on the issue of Terry Ann’s [state] pension.” Smith IV, 293 A.3d at
305. In Smith IV, “we affirmed the trial justice’s equitable distribution of the parties’
marital assets in Smith I, as well as in Smith II.” Id. at 306; see also Smith I, 207
A.3d at 450-51; Smith II, 252 A.3d at 247-49. We further noted in Smith IV that,
although Terry Ann’s state pension was “identified as a marital asset,” it was “not
distributed in either the Family Court’s decision pending entry of final judgment or
final judgment.” Smith IV, 293 A.3d at 306. Accordingly, this Court remanded the
case to the Family Court “for the limited purpose of distributing Terry Ann’s [state]
pension.” Id. We emphasize yet again that our remand in Smith IV in no way
“alter[ed] or otherwise affect[ed] this Court’s affirmation of the trial justice’s
equitable distribution of the remainder of the marital estate.” Id.
In the instant appeal, defendant asserts that the trial justice erred in awarding
plaintiff one hundred percent of her state pension, arguing that the Family Court had
improperly awarded the state pension to plaintiff since defendant had already begun
collecting the pension proceeds in a joint bank account with plaintiff as of September
28, 2008, until plaintiff redirected the pension funds to her individual bank account.2
2 The order granting her state pension to plaintiff was labeled “judgment,” but it is actually a post-judgment order, as final judgment was entered in 2019. This Court had “direct[ed] the Family Court to enter the order relative to the pension distribution -3- We disagree.
Pursuant to our remand in Smith IV, on November 15, 2023, the parties
appeared before a justice of the Family Court to address the issue of equitable
distribution of plaintiff’s state pension. In addition to considering the parties’
arguments, the trial justice also incorporated her previous findings of fact when she
determined that plaintiff was entitled to one hundred percent of her state pension.
“It is well established that ‘the equitable distribution of marital assets is left
to the sound discretion of the Family Court justice who is obligated to consider the
factors prescribed by the Legislature in G.L. 1956 § 15-5-16.1.’” Smith I, 207 A.3d
at 450 (brackets omitted) (quoting Andreozzi v. Andreozzi, 813 A.2d 78, 81 (R.I.
2003)). Equitable distribution does not equate to equal distribution. In her decision
to award plaintiff one hundred percent of the state pension, the trial justice
appropriately considered several factors, including (1) the length of the marriage;
(2) the conduct of the parties during the marriage; and (3) each party’s contributions
toward the acquisition, preservation, and appreciation of marital assets. See id.; see
also § 15-5-16.1.
It is manifestly apparent that defendant’s conduct over the course of a
decade—since the inception of these divorce proceedings—was a significant factor
nunc pro tunc to the date of the decision pending entry of final judgment.” Smith v. Smith, 293 A.3d 305, 307 (R.I. 2023) (mem.) (Smith IV). -4- that the trial justice considered in determining the equitable distribution of the state
pension. At the November 15, 2023 hearing, the trial justice recounted defendant’s
continual efforts to deceive the court, his refusal to comply with discovery requests,
his willful and intentional devaluation of marital assets to prevent plaintiff from
receiving “a penny”; and she noted that defendant was rarely forthright with the court
regarding his own finances. See Smith II, 252 A.3d at 247 (noting that Smith had
“deliberately sought to deceive the court, refused to comply with discovery requests,
and engaged in vexatious litigation practices by filing a multitude of frivolous
motions and appealing nearly every decision by the general magistrate”) (quoting
Smith I, 207 A.3d at 448, 451).
Based on the trial justice’s comprehensive findings and the generous property
distributions that the court awarded to defendant, despite his “egregious behavior,”
we find no error in the trial justice’s determination that plaintiff was entitled to one
hundred percent of the state pension. Thus, defendant’s argument that he is entitled
to fifty percent of that state pension, an equal distribution, is wholly without merit.
See Smith II, 252 A.3d at 248 (“This Court ‘will not disturb findings of fact made by
a trial justice or magistrate in a divorce action unless he or she has misconceived the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Terry Ann Smith v. Andrew Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-ann-smith-v-andrew-smith-ri-2025.