Raymond T. Boschetto v. Cindy M. Boschetto

RIJanuary 27, 2020No. 18-217

Case Details

Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal from amended decision pending entry of final judgment; Supreme Court affirmed Family Court judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's judgment terminating the marriage on irreconcilable differences, upholding the trial justice's asset division and child support determination against the plaintiff's appeal.

Excerpt

The plaintiff, Raymond Boschetto, appealed from an amended decision pending entry of final judgment terminating his marriage to the defendant, Cindy Boschetto, on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the trial justice's assignment of certain assets as well as her determination of the amount of his child support obligation. The Supreme Court upheld all of the trial justice's assignments of assets as well as her determination of the amount of the plaintiff's child support obligation. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice properly followed the language of the parties' premarital agreement when she evenly divided the contributions the defendant and her employer made to her 401K account since the marriage began between the parties and did not allocate any of the appreciation in value of the account to the plaintiff. The Court also held that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion with respect to her allocations between the parties of the defendant's other investment account, the parties' joint bank account, and the parties' individual bank accounts. In addition, the Court held that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion when she found the plaintiff's earning capacity to be higher than what he had earned from his immediate employment based on past years of personal income tax returns and corporate tax returns related to his solely-owned business. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Family Court.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a divorce between Raymond and Cindy Boschetto. After their marriage was terminated due to irreconcilable differences, Raymond disagreed with how the family court divided their assets and calculated his child support payments. He appealed the decision, asking a higher court to change the rulings about property division and support obligations. **What the Court Decided:** The Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected Raymond's appeal and upheld the original family court's decisions. The court found that the trial judge had properly divided the couple's assets and correctly calculated the child support amount Raymond must pay. All of the lower court's rulings remained in place. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this was a family law case rather than an employment dispute, it shows how courts handle appeals of financial decisions. For workers going through divorce, this demonstrates that family courts have significant discretion in dividing assets and setting support obligations. Successfully challenging these decisions on appeal is difficult, as higher courts typically defer to the original judge's findings unless there were clear legal errors. Workers should understand that initial court rulings on asset division and support often stand even when appealed.

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

Read Full Opinion More Cindy M. Boschetto Rulings All Rulings

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.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

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.