Skip to main content

Adam Saltzman v. Erin Saltzman

RINovember 15, 2019No. 18-171

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

The defendant, Erin Saltzman, appealed from a judgment of the Family Court granting an absolute divorce to the defendant and her former husband, the plaintiff, Adam Saltzman. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial justice erred in: (1) denying her motion to relocate with the two minor children to Ohio (2) awarding temporary use of the home to her for thirty months, after which it would be sold (3) the award of child support (4) the award of attorneys' fees and costs (5) the equitable distribution of marital property (6) setting the visitation schedule and (7) the amount of sanctions imposed on the plaintiff for making false statements under oath. After thoroughly reviewing the record, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice acted within his discretion in denying the defendant's motion to relocate with the two minor children to Ohio the award of child support the equitable distribution of marital property setting the visitation schedule and the amount of sanctions imposed on the plaintiff. The Court held that the trial justice diligently reviewed all the evidence and all the relevant factors with respect to these issues. However, the Court held that the trial justice strayed beyond the bounds of his discretion in declining to award attorneys' fees to the defendant, because he failed to make a finding as to the defendant's ability to compensate her attorney as required in McCulloch v. McCulloch, 69 A.3d 810, 826 (R.I. 2013). Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the Family Court and remanded the case back to the Family Court.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a divorce dispute between Adam and Erin Saltzman, not a typical employment law matter. Erin Saltzman appealed a family court's divorce ruling that she disagreed with on several points. **What Happened:** During their divorce proceedings, Erin Saltzman wanted to move to Ohio with their two minor children, but the family court denied her request. The court also made decisions about temporary housing (giving her 30 months in the family home before it would be sold), child support payments, attorney fees, and how to divide their property. Erin appealed these decisions to a higher court. **What the Court Decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further review, meaning they didn't make a final decision on the disputed issues. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case doesn't directly impact workers' rights since it's a family law dispute rather than an employment case. However, workers going through divorce should know that custody arrangements, including potential relocations that might affect job opportunities, require court approval. The case shows how family court decisions can affect where someone can live and work, which may influence career choices during divorce proceedings.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Jane Doe v. Brown University
RIJun 2021

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.