Introduction

This commentary examines the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision in Marilyn L. Wilson v. The City of Providence (2025). The case arose when former spouse Marilyn Wilson sought entitlement to a statutory surviving spouse pension benefit following the death of her ex-husband, retired Providence police officer Milton Wilson. Despite a prior property settlement agreement nominating Marilyn as an “irrevocable beneficiary” of her ex-husband’s pension, the City of Providence paid the statutory benefit to Diane Wilson, Milton’s wife at the time of his death. The key issues before the Court were:

• Whether a statutory surviving spouse benefit can be assigned by a property settlement agreement that was incorporated—but not merged—into a divorce judgment;
• The proper interpretation of G.L. 1956 § 45-21.3-1 (state police pension statute) and Providence Code § 17-189(m)(6) (city ordinance) regarding “surviving spouse” designation.

Parties:

• Plaintiff/Appellant: Marilyn L. Wilson
• Defendant/Appellees: The City of Providence (Treasurer Shomari Husband) and Diane Wilson

Summary of the Judgment

The Rhode Island Supreme Court, affirming the Superior Court, held that:

• Statutory surviving spouse benefits under § 45-21.3-1 and Providence Code § 17-189(m)(6) are not assignable by private agreement.
• “Surviving spouse” in both enactments plainly refers to the individual married to the retiree at the time of death—not a former spouse.
• A property settlement agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree remains a standalone contract and cannot override or conflict with unambiguous statutory mandates.

Therefore, Diane Wilson, as Milton’s surviving spouse at death, was entitled to the 67.5% pension benefit, and Marilyn’s claim under the divorce agreement was void to the extent it conflicted with the statute and ordinance.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• City of Woonsocket v. RISE Prep Mayoral Academy, 251 A.3d 495 (R.I. 2021): Established that clear statutory language is given its plain and ordinary meaning in discerning legislative intent.
• Romano v. Retirement Board of the Employees’ Retirement System, 767 A.2d 35 (R.I. 2001): Held that pension system members cannot circumvent statutory mandates through private agreement.

These precedents guided the Court’s focus on textual clarity and the prohibition against contractual overrides of unambiguous statutes.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two steps:

1. Statutory Interpretation: Applying a de novo standard, the Court examined § 45-21.3-1 and Providence Code § 17-189(m)(6). Both texts use mandatory language to grant 67.5% of the pension allowance to “his or her dependent spouse” or “surviving spouse” for life. Black’s Law Dictionary confirms “spouse” as the person lawfully married at the relevant time—here, at death. Because the language is “clear and unambiguous,” it must be enforced as written.
2. Contract vs. Statute Conflict: The property settlement agreement was “incorporated, not merged” into the 1998 divorce decree, retaining its character as an independent contract. The Court reiterated that any private agreement conflicting with an express statutory requirement is void to that extent. Marilyn’s attempt to assign to herself the surviving spouse benefit directly conflicted with the statute and ordinance and therefore could not stand.

Impact

This decision will shape future divorce settlements and pension disbursements in Rhode Island by clarifying that:

• Statutory pension benefits, once defined by clear legislative text, are non-assignable through private contracts.
• Family courts cannot override or reassign statutory benefits in final divorce judgments or post-judgment relief proceedings.
• Parties must be mindful that any agreement purporting to transfer or assign such benefits will be invalid if it conflicts with unambiguous statutes or ordinances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Incorporation” vs. “Merger” of Agreements: Incorporation means the contract remains separate from the court’s decree; merger would absorb the contract into the judgment. Here, “incorporated but not merged” preserved the agreement as an independent deal.
• Plain-Language Statutory Interpretation: When a statute’s wording is clear, courts do not look beyond the text to discern intent.
• Non-Assignability Principle: A private contract cannot override an explicit legislative mandate. If the two conflict, the statute prevails and the contract provision is void.
• Summary Judgment Standard: Reviewed de novo on appeal—courts view undisputed facts in favor of the nonmoving party and resolve only questions of law.

Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. City of Providence reaffirms that statutory pension benefits are a product of legislative policy and cannot be reassigned by private agreement. Surviving spouse benefits accrue only to the person lawfully married to the retiree at death, and any contract purporting otherwise is void to the extent of conflict. Divorcing spouses and family courts must therefore recognize the supremacy of clear statutory language governing public-sector pension schemes.