The Rhode Island Family Court has jurisdiction to enforce or interpret a marital settlement agreement (MSA) or property settlement agreement (PSA) from another state. The applicable law is: RI Law, SECTION 8-10-3. It appears that any confusion regarding jurisdiction of these matters may result from the poorly written statute, 8-10-3. This law is essentially a ridiculous, endless run-on sentence.
Courts may enforce and interpret marital settlement agreements from other states
Rhode Island General Law 8-10-3 specifically grants jurisdiction to the Rhode Island Family Court to enforce or interpret a property settlement agreement from another state. RIGL 8-10-3 state,s in pertinent part: “(a) There is hereby established a family court, consisting of a chief judge and eleven (11) associate justices, to hear and determine……… antenuptial agreements, property settlement agreements and all other contracts between persons, who at the time of execution of the contracts, were husband and wife or planned to enter into that relationship; (### full text of jurisdiction statute below)
In Schwab v Schwab the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated:
“We have said that “the Family Court is a statutory tribunal whose powers are specifically granted by the Family Court Act. Christensen v. Christensen, 121 R.I. 272, 274, 397 A.2d 900, 901 (1979). Among these powers is the authority to “hear and determine all petitions for * * *enforcement of any order or decree granting alimony * * * of any court of competent jurisdiction of another state; [and] modification of any order or decree granting alimony * * * of any court of competent jurisdiction of another state on the ground that there has been a change of circumstances * * *.” G.L. 1956 §8-10-3(a). (Emphases added.)
In Scheuerman v. Woronoff , a property settlement agreement case, the RI top Court determined:
“In Scheuerman v. Woronoff, 459 A.2d 957 (R.I. 1983), this Court was confronted with the question of whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to modify or enforce a settlement agreement that was incorporated by reference, but not merged in a final divorce decree of a New Jersey court. We interpreted § 8-10-3(a) and held that“[t]he plain language of the amended statute clearly confers jurisdiction on the Family Court to hear and determine matters pertaining to custody, support, alimony, visitation, property-settlement agreements, and contracts between persons who at the time of execution were husband and wife or planned to enter into such a relationship, even though these orders, agreements, or contracts may have originated or been executed in a foreign jurisdiction.” Scheuerman, 459A.2d at 959.”
“Here, as in Scheuerman, a foreign court of competent jurisdiction entered a final judgment of divorce, and a settlement agreement, which was incorporated by reference in the judgment, was executed by the parties in that jurisdiction. Consistent with our clear statement in Scheuerman, we hold that the Family Court had jurisdiction to decide Walter’s motion to set aside the Connecticut judgment and settlement agreement on the merits, and that the hearing justice committed a fundamental error when he denied that motion as well as the motion to reconsider.” SCHWAB v. SCHWAB.