Breach of Contract Cases

The plaintiff, John Ferreira, appealed from the dismissal of his first amended complaint against his former employer, Child and Family Services of Newport County. The plaintiff had asserted claims such as defamation constructive termination discrimination based on disparate treatment, age, and gender pursuant to G.L. 1956 chapter 112 of title 42 and G.L. 1956 § 28-5-7 and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A hearing justice of the Superior Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that his first amended complaint fulfilled the purpose of the general pleading rules by providing adequate notice to the defendant of his claims and that he should have been allowed to again amend his complaint. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had not sufficiently stated any of the claims he asserted in his amended complaint. The Court also held that the amended complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice because the hearing justice had previously explained the deficiencies in the plaintiff's complaint, but the plaintiff had not rectified the problems when he filed his first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Wife/Appellant appeals the trial court's denial of relief on her post-divorce petition for contempt and breach of contract. The parties' MDA awarded Wife 50% of Husband/Appellee's FERS Supplement, which was subsequently terminated due to Husband's yearly earned income being in excess of the FERS cap of $15,120.00. Because the parties' MDA did not preclude Husband from earning income in excess of the cap, and did not include a provision for such occurrence, the trial court properly denied Wife's petition. Although the trial court sua sponte modified child support to award an additional amount equal to the lost FERS Supplement, it did so in error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of Husband's motion to alter or amend the award of additional child support. Because the MDA allows the prevailing party to recover attorney's fees and expenses, we reverse the trial court's denial of Husband's reasonable fees and expenses, and remand for determination of same, and for entry of judgment thereon. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

ten-year construction statute of repose in R.C. 2305.131 applies to contract and tort claims pursuant to Supreme Court's New Riegel case statute does not violate to right-to-remedy clause school district made new argument in supplemental brief that a claim accruing within the statute of repose's ten-year period is not subject to the statute, but this argument was not specified to the trial court alternatively, the New Riegel concurrence is persuasive on this issue.