Shelley Carpenter v. Norman Carpenter

Supreme Court

No. 2023-47-Appeal.
(K 20-3199)

Shelley Carpenter :

v. :

Norman Carpenter. :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical
or other formal errors in order that corrections may be
made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court

No. 2023-47-Appeal.
(K 20-3199)

Shelley Carpenter :

v. :

Norman Carpenter. :

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Long, for the Court. The defendant, Norman Carpenter (defendant

or Mr. Carpenter), appeals from an interlocutory order of the Family Court that

authorized a court-appointed commissioner to sell portions of marital property that

he owned with his wife, the plaintiff Shelley Carpenter (plaintiff or Mrs. Carpenter).

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties

to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be

summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and

reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that we may

decide this case without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in

this opinion, we affirm the order of the Family Court.

-1-
Facts and Procedural History

This interlocutory appeal arises out of the parties’ divorce proceedings in

Family Court, which commenced on August 6, 2020, when Mrs. Carpenter filed a

complaint for divorce from defendant. A justice of the Family Court subsequently

appointed a commissioner and by order dated February 16, 2021, authorized the

commissioner to assess, sell, transfer, and convey the parties’ assets related to the

division of the marital estate, among other responsibilities.

More than one year after appointment of the commissioner, both Mrs.

Carpenter and the commissioner filed separate motions seeking to hold Mr.

Carpenter in contempt due to his alleged noncompliance with court orders related to

the disclosure and division of the marital estate. Additionally, the commissioner

filed a motion for instructions that included a request for authorization to sell five

jointly owned parcels of land on Brant Trail in West Greenwich (the property). The

parties appeared in the Family Court on two occasions related to the pending

motions, including on May 9, 2022, when the trial justice explained on the record

that she had heard arguments in chambers regarding the property; and, over the

objection of Mr. Carpenter, ordered the sale of the property.

An order reflecting that ruling entered on June 3, 2022, and the parties

subsequently appeared at additional hearings to facilitate the distribution of the

marital estate. On August 24, 2022, the trial justice again conferred with counsel in

-2-
chambers before appearing on the record, at which time counsel for Mr. Carpenter

assented to both the authority of the commissioner to sell the property and the

commissioner’s intent to move forward with a purchase and sales agreement; but

counsel for Mr. Carpenter also sought permission to contact a potential alternative

buyer, which would have two weeks to make a legitimate offer. Otherwise, counsel

confirmed, the commissioner could renegotiate the sales price in light of unspecified

information concerning contamination of the property. The trial justice obtained the

consent of the parties that the commissioner could negotiate the best price and move

forward with the sale:

“THE COURT: Yes. You understand that, sir, Mr.
Carpenter?

“MR. CARPENTER: Yes.

“THE COURT: And you agree?

“MR. CARPENTER: Yes.

“THE COURT: And you understand and agree, Ms.
Carpenter?

“MS. CARPENTER: Yes.

“THE COURT: So ordered.”

An order entered on September 8, 2022, by “agreement of the parties with the terms

read into the record,” that provided the following in relevant part:

“The Defendant, Norman E. Carpenter, is afforded two (2)
weeks in order to determine whether a potential buyer that
-3-
he has identified is willing to extend an offer to purchase
certain lots on Brant Trail in West Greenwich, Rhode
Island in an ‘as is’ condition without further inspection or
delay. Counsel for Defendant shall advise the
Commissioner forthwith if said potential buyer will not
extend an offer. Further, if such offer is not proffered
within two (2) weeks, the Commissioner is authorized to
negotiate and close on the best deal available.”

Two months later, the commissioner filed a motion for relief seeking an order

from the Family Court specifying the terms of the sale—including the buyer’s

identity, the sale price, and a legal description of the property—to ensure compliance

with the requirements of the prospective buyer’s title insurance company. On

November 15, 2022, after holding an additional chambers conference, the parties

immediately appeared before the trial justice at a hearing, during which counsel for

Mr. Carpenter objected to various aspects of the sale including the lack of a signed

purchase and sales agreement, and stated Mr. Carpenter’s desire to purchase a parcel

of the property for himself. The Family Court subsequently granted the

commissioner’s motion for relief and entered an order authorizing the commissioner

to sell four of the property’s five parcels to buyer WG Realty, LLC for $400,000.

Thereafter, on December 2, 2022, Mr. Carpenter filed a notice of appeal challenging

the Family Court’s November 15, 2022 order. 1 The Family Court has not yet entered

a final judgment.

1
Mrs. Carpenter filed a motion to dismiss in this Court based on her contention that
Mr. Carpenter had not filed his appeal in a timely manner. Specifically, Mrs.
-4-
On appeal, Mr. Carpenter argues that the trial justice erred in issuing the

November 15, 2022 order because the trial justice declined to direct the

commissioner to consider—or hold an evidentiary hearing related to—Mr.

Carpenter’s desire to purchase one of the property’s four parcels subject to that order.

We therefore consider (1) whether Mr. Carpenter can permissibly appeal from the

Family Court’s November 15, 2022 order authorizing the sale of four of the

property’s five parcels to WG Realty, LLC; and (2) whether the trial justice erred in

issuing that order.

Discussion

Although this Court generally does not authorize appeals on an interlocutory

basis, G.L. 1956 § 9-24-7 permits litigants to file an interlocutory appeal in the

following statutorily authorized instances:

“Whenever, upon a hearing in the superior court, an
injunction shall be granted or continued, or a receiver
appointed, or a sale of real or personal property ordered,
by an interlocutory order or judgment, or a new trial is
ordered or denied after a trial by jury, an appeal may be
taken from such order or judgment to the supreme court in
like manner as from a final judgment, and the appeal shall
take precedence in the supreme court.”

Carpenter argued that this Court should not permit Mr. Carpenter to appeal from the
November 15, 2022 order because he did not appeal from the related Family Court
orders entered on June 3, 2022, or September 8, 2022. This Court denied Mrs.
Carpenter’s motion to dismiss and directed the parties to address the timeliness of
Mr. Carpenter’s appeal in their prebriefing statements. However, Mrs. Carpenter
declined to press this issue at oral argument before this Court.
-5-
Despite the ostensible limitation of § 9-24-7 to matters taking place in the

Superior Court, we also apply this provision to Family Court orders that authorize

property sales. Krivitsky v. Krivitsky, 43 A.3d 23, 29 n.19 (R.I. 2012). Additionally,

this Court has long recognized an exception that permits litigants to appeal from

interlocutory orders in equitable matters when an order (1) possesses the requisite

elements of finality and (2) threatens possible injurious consequences absent this

Court’s intervention. McAuslan v. McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462, 472, 83 A. 837, 841

(1912).

We are satisfied that Mr. Carpenter filed a proper, timely appeal from the

November 15, 2022 order of the Family Court that authorized the sale of four of the

property’s five parcels to WG Realty, LLC. Specifically, the order authorized a sale

of real property to a particular buyer at a fixed price, and Mr. Carpenter filed a notice

of appeal within twenty days of the order, as mandated by Article I, Rule 4 of the

Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, based on our

determination that Mr. Carpenter complied with the applicable procedural

requirements to file an appeal before this Court, we conclude that this Court may

properly review his challenge to the November 15, 2022 order.

Notwithstanding our determination that Mr. Carpenter validly appealed from

the November 15, 2022 order, we cannot substantively evaluate the merits of his

claimed error. Mr. Carpenter asks this Court to invalidate the November 15, 2022

-6-
order authorizing the sale of four of the property’s five parcels because, he argues,

the trial justice refused to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to rejecting his request

to purchase one of the lots contained in the property for himself. However,

examination of the record reveals that, following the November 15, 2022 chambers

conference, the parties appeared on the record, discussed the sale of four of the

property’s five parcels, and the Family Court heard and denied objections from Mr.

Carpenter’s counsel concerning (1) the terms of the sale, such as the lack of a signed

purchase and sales agreement, and (2) Mr. Carpenter’s desire to purchase one parcel

of the property for himself. Despite Mr. Carpenter’s various objections throughout

the travel of this case, he did not request an evidentiary hearing at the

November 15, 2022 hearing or at any prior hearing in this matter. See In re Madlyn

B., 187 A.3d 1105, 1123 (R.I. 2018) (noting that trial counsel must raise objections

that are specific enough to focus the trial justice’s attention on the precise nature of

the claimed error).

Moreover, as both the transcript of the August 24, 2022 hearing and the

September 8, 2022 order demonstrate, Mr. Carpenter explicitly agreed to the

commissioner’s authority to proceed with a sale of the property’s five parcels in the

event that Mr. Carpenter could not obtain a suitable alternative buyer. As a result,

this Court is hard-pressed to discern in what respect Mr. Carpenter could permissibly

seek our intervention in the Family Court’s administration of the property. Finally,

-7-
while Rule 16 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure

undoubtedly permits litigants to participate in chambers conferences, 2 litigants who

engage in them must be vigilant about producing a developed and reviewable

appellate record. The parties in this matter clearly benefitted from narrowing the

issues at the August 24, 2022 conference; however, the lack of a request for an

2
Rule 16 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure provides the
following:

“In any action the court may in its discretion direct the
attorneys for the parties or a self-represented litigant to
appear before it for a conference to consider:

“(1) The simplification of the issues;

“(2) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the
pleadings;

“(3) The possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of
documents which will avoid unnecessary proof;

“(4) The limitations of the number of expert witnesses;
and/or

“(5) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the
action.

“The court shall make an order which recites the action
taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to the
pleadings, and the agreements made by the parties as to
any of the matters considered, and which limits the issues
for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or
agreements of counsel; and such order when entered
controls the subsequent course of the action, unless
modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice.”
-8-
evidentiary hearing following the November 15, 2022 conference demonstrates the

importance of preserving specific objections. Because Mr. Carpenter did not request

an evidentiary hearing, and in light of his explicit, on-the-record agreement to

authorize the commissioner to move forward with the sale of the property, we

determine that Mr. Carpenter has waived his challenge to the November 15, 2022

order and we may not review it. Decathlon Investments v. Medeiros, 252 A.3d 268,

270 (R.I. 2021).

Accordingly, we affirm the Family Court’s November 15, 2022 order

authorizing the sale of four of the property’s five parcels.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the order appealed from and remand the

record in this matter to the Family Court.

-9-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case Shelley Carpenter v. Norman Carpenter.

No. 2023-47-Appeal.
Case Number
(K 20-3199)

Date Opinion Filed July 3, 2024

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.

Written By Associate Justice Melissa A. Long

Source of Appeal Kent County Family Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Debra E. DiSegna

For Plaintiff:

Lauren E. Jones, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendant:

Thomas M. Dickinson, Esq.

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)