Background
Michele and Craig Wilson divorced in 2010 after a marriage that began in 1980. As part of their divorce, the parties executed a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) that was incorporated but not merged into the final judgment. Paragraph Fourteenth of the PSA required Craig to transfer one-half of his “fully vested retirement plan through his employer/union” to Michele by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Craig’s retirement plan consisted of two components: a defined contribution annuity and a defined benefit pension. At the time of the final judgment in May 2010, a QDRO was entered to divide the annuity, but no QDRO was ever prepared for the pension.
Craig suffered a stroke in December 2014 and retired, beginning to receive pension benefits on June 1, 2015. He did not pay Michele any portion of those benefits. In December 2023, Michele moved to reopen the divorce action to obtain a QDRO covering the pension. Craig objected, arguing the motion was time-barred and that the PSA never required division of the pension in the first place. A Family Court general magistrate ruled in Michele’s favor, ordering preparation of a second QDRO, reimbursement of all pension payments Craig had received since June 2015, and ongoing direct payments to Michele pending the QDRO’s effectuation. A Family Court justice affirmed that ruling on appeal, and Craig timely appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, Craig raised four arguments: that Michele’s motion was untimely under the ten-year civil statute of limitations, G.L. 1956 § 9-1-13; that the Family Court erred in ordering specific performance; that the PSA did not require a second QDRO; and that the Family Court improperly reformed the PSA without a finding of mutual mistake or the parties’ consent.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Family Court’s order. On the statute of limitations, the Court held that Michele’s cause of action did not accrue until June 1, 2015, when Craig began receiving pension benefits and failed to remit her share—not in May 2010 when the final judgment was entered. Because Michele filed her motion in December 2023, within ten years of the June 2015 breach, the action was timely under § 9-1-13. The Court distinguished its prior decision in Capaldi v. Capaldi, where the pension at issue had never been mentioned in the property settlement agreement; here, the PSA unambiguously covered the entirety of Craig’s retirement plan.
On the merits, the Court held that Paragraph Fourteenth of the PSA was unambiguous: its reference to Craig’s “fully vested retirement plan” plainly encompassed both the annuity and the pension, and the parties’ mutual intent was to divide all marital assets equally. The Court found that Craig’s retention of the entire pension since 2015 constituted breach of the PSA, and that specific performance was the appropriate remedy for a nonmerged property settlement agreement.
The Court also rejected Craig’s argument that ordering a second QDRO amounted to impermissible reformation of the PSA. Because the PSA already required division of the pension, directing Craig to prepare a QDRO for that purpose was enforcement of existing contractual terms—not a modification. The Family Court accordingly acted within its authority, and no finding of mutual mistake was required.
Key Takeaways
- Under Rhode Island’s ten-year civil statute of limitations, a cause of action for breach of a nonmerged PSA accrues when the breach occurs—here, when the obligor spouse began receiving pension benefits and withheld the other spouse’s share—not when the divorce judgment was entered.
- A PSA provision requiring division of a spouse’s “retirement plan” covers all components of that plan (both pension and annuity), even if the plan’s individual components are not separately named, so long as the language unambiguously reflects the parties’ intent to divide the whole.
- Ordering a second QDRO to effectuate pension rights already granted by a nonmerged PSA constitutes enforcement, not reformation, of the agreement; no finding of mutual mistake or party consent is required.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court distinguished Capaldi—where the omitted pension was a genuinely undisclosed asset—from cases where the asset was covered by clear contractual language but simply never memorialized in a QDRO.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance for family law practitioners in Rhode Island on two frequently litigated issues: when the clock starts running on a PSA breach claim, and how broadly generic “retirement plan” language in a PSA will be construed. Attorneys drafting QDROs and property settlement agreements should take note that failing to execute a QDRO for every retirement component covered by a PSA does not extinguish the non-employee spouse’s rights—it simply delays enforcement until a breach occurs.
The ruling also signals that Rhode Island courts will look to actual contractual intent rather than the mechanics of which QDROs were entered at the time of divorce. Parties who believe the omission of a QDRO at judgment signals a waiver of rights face an uphill battle where the underlying PSA language is clear, and they remain exposed to retroactive reimbursement of benefits received going back to the date of first payment.