Fee award upheld in divorce appeal

PROVIDENCE, RI — A Family Court order requiring a defendant to pay his former wife $74,680 to offset her fees and costs has been upheld on appeal because of his repetitive and unsupported legal arguments.

A Family Court magistrate found that the defendant had violated both Rule 11 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure and G.L. §9-29-21 “because of specious arguments and filings made for which there was no reasonable legal or factual basis during the pendency of this divorce.”

While acknowledging that the defendant had the right to proceed pro se, the magistrate determined that he had failed to make a reasonable inquiry as to whether his positions were supported by sufficient evidence and had not made his claims in good faith. Moreover, the magistrate noted that the defendant continued to proceed pro se despite multiple admonitions encouraging him to retain counsel, causing the plaintiff to incur substantial costs in responding to the defendant’s unsubstantiated claims.

The fee order was upheld by a Family Court judge.

On appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the defendant contended that the magistrate failed to make the “threshold determination” that the plaintiff lacked sufficient funds to pay legal fees.

“Here, however, the trial justice awarded counsel fees based on Rule 11 and §9-29-21, rather than §15-5-16, and was therefore not required to first find that [the plaintiff] lacked financial stability before awarding counsel fees. Even so, the trial court did consider [the plaintiff]’s financial stability, expressly acknowledging that [the plaintiff] possessed the means and assets to pay her own counsel fees. Nevertheless, the trial court found that [the defendant]’s conduct rose to such a level that counsel fees were warranted under Rule 11 and §9-29-21. We perceive no abuse of authority in that determination,” Justice Erin P. Lynch Prata wrote for the Supreme Court.

“The trial court oversaw years of contentious proceedings and over those years heard [the defendant]’s repetitive and unsupported legal arguments. [The defendant] alone caused the protracted litigation and in turn caused [the plaintiff] to incur significant additional legal fees. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in granting [the plaintiff]’s request for attorneys’ fees,” Lynch Prata added.

The 19-page decision is Constantino v. Orban, Lawyers Weekly No. 60-062-26.