Stratoberdha v. Clements Properties, LLC (R.I. 2025)
Finality of Un-Appealed Family Court Orders and the Extension of § 9-24-7 Interlocutory-Appeal Rights

1. Introduction

Robert and Etleva Stratoberdha purchased 18 Peggy Lane, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, only to suffer chronic flooding allegedly caused by their neighbor, Clements Properties, LLC (“Clements”), and the Town of Portsmouth (“Town”). They sued Clements, the Town and others in 2013 in Superior Court, seeking damages and injunctive relief (NC-2013-437). While that civil action languished, their marriage deteriorated; in 2021 Etleva filed for divorce in Family Court. During the divorce the Family Court:

1. Appointed Attorney Barbara E. Grady as Commissioner to sell the marital home and to “settle and/or compromise” the Peggy-Lane lawsuit (Order of 24 Mar 2022);
2. Later incorporated and approved a mediated settlement that required Clements to buy the home for $870,000 and the Town to pay $75,000 (Order of 8 Sep 2023);
3. Issued a divorce interlocutory decision (5 Mar 2024) allocating one-half of the net settlement proceeds to each spouse.

Robert never appealed any of those Family Court orders, yet he objected in Superior Court when the Commissioner sought approval of the settlement. After the Superior Court dismissed his objections and approved the deal (4 Jan 2024), Robert appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, arguing that the Superior Court should have re-examined the Family Court’s authority to settle the civil case.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Goldberg, writing for a unanimous Court, affirmed the Superior Court’s order of 4 Jan 2024. Key holdings:

• The 24 Mar 2022 and 8 Sep 2023 Family Court orders, and the 5 Mar 2024 interlocutory decision, were all appealable under G.L. § 9-24-7 because they “authorized property sales” and effected disposition of marital assets.
• Robert failed to file timely notices of appeal (Rule 4(a)) from those orders so they became final decrees. The Superior Court therefore acted only “ministerially” in approving the settlement and could not revisit the Family Court’s determinations.
• Because the Family Court decrees were final, Robert lacked standing to collaterally attack them in the Superior Court or on appeal in the Supreme Court.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Carpenter v. Carpenter

316 A.3d 1261 (R.I. 2024) – confirmed that § 9-24-7 interlocutory appeals apply to Family Court orders authorising property sales. The Court relied heavily on Carpenter to classify the Stratoberdha orders as immediately appealable.

Boyer v. Bedrosian

57 A.3d 259, 283 n.36 (R.I. 2012) – emphasised that a trial court should not undermine or invalidate orders from a court of concurrent jurisdiction. Utilised to stress the “principle of respect” between Family and Superior Courts.

McElroy v. Stephens

331 A.3d 971, 979 n.5 (R.I. 2025) – stands for the rule that a premature notice of appeal ripens once judgment enters; cited to declare Robert’s 18 Dec 2023 notice “premature but valid.”

Palin v. Palin

41 A.3d 248 (R.I. 2012) – clarified that divorce “decision pending entry of final judgment” is itself appealable. Cited to underscore Robert’s missing the deadline to appeal the 5 Mar 2024 interlocutory decision.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Appealability of Family Court Orders. Section 9-24-7 allows interlocutory appeals from orders “appointing a receiver” or “ordering the sale of real or personal property.” Although textually aimed at the Superior Court, the Court reiterated its broader application to Family Court orders that dispose of marital property (citing Carpenter). Thus, each order concerning the Peggy-Lane property was immediately appealable.
2. Rule 4(a) Time Limits. Civil appellants have 20 days from entry of an appealable order. Robert did not appeal within this window; consequently, the orders “ripened into final decrees.”
3. Ministerial Function of the Superior Court. Because the Family Court had already authorised settlement and empowered Commissioner Grady to sign on either spouse’s behalf, the Superior Court’s role in approving the settlement was purely ministerial—akin to verifying fairness and ordering dismissal, not re-litigating authority.
4. Prohibition on Collateral Attack. Under the comity doctrine referenced in Boyer, one trial court cannot invalidate another’s final orders. Robert’s objection amounted to an impermissible collateral attack.
5. Standing and Preclusion. Given the Commissioner’s statutory and court-ordered authority, Robert lacked standing to contest the settlement in the Superior Court.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Clarity on Appeal Deadlines. Litigants in divorce cases must treat Family Court orders that authorise sale or settlement of marital assets as immediately appealable under § 9-24-7. Failure to appeal renders them immune from later challenge.
• Family Court’s Power to Settle Related Civil Litigation. The decision tacitly endorses the Family Court’s authority to empower a commissioner to compromise a separate civil action when that litigation concerns a marital asset.
• Inter-Court Comity Reinforced. Superior Court judges may rely on final Family Court decrees without undertaking an independent validity review, ensuring smoother administration and avoiding forum shopping.
• Practitioner Guidance. Divorce counsel must vigilantly track appeal windows when commissioners are appointed, settlements authorised, or property sales ordered, or risk forfeiting objections.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Interlocutory Order

A temporary ruling made while the case is still ongoing; immediately appealable in narrow statutory situations (here, property sales).

Commissioner

A neutral lawyer appointed by the court to carry out specific tasks—selling property, signing documents, or settling claims—on behalf of the parties.

Ministerial Act

An action the court must perform once prerequisites are met, leaving no room for discretion (e.g., approving a settlement already validated by another competent court).

Collateral Attack

An indirect attempt to invalidate a court order in a different proceeding rather than through a direct, timely appeal.

Standing

The legal right to bring or contest a claim in court. If an individual is bound by a final order or represented by an authorised commissioner, standing may be lost.

5. Conclusion

Stratoberdha v. Clements Properties cements two doctrinal points in Rhode Island law: (1) Family Court orders that authorise the sale of marital property or the compromise of related civil claims fall within the § 9-24-7 interlocutory-appeal framework; and (2) once the 20-day appeal window closes, those orders are final and no other trial court may disturb them. The decision strengthens inter-court comity, provides parties with predictable appellate timelines, and confirms the Family Court’s practical authority to resolve ancillary civil litigation when marital assets are at stake. Counsel who overlook these appealability rules risk binding their clients irrevocably to settlements, property sales, and allocation decrees they cannot later challenge.