Acosta v. Britto

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Acosta v. Britto

776 A.2d 1064, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 183, 2001 WL 894500

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 11, 2001

DocketNo. 00-385-A

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 776 A.2d 1064 (Acosta v. Britto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. Britto, 776 A.2d 1064, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 183, 2001 WL 894500 (R.I. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before this Court at a session in conference pursuant to Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the record and the parties’ memoranda, we proceed to decide the case at this time without further briefing or argument.

The defendant, acting pro se, has appealed from the entry of a Family Court order modifying his child support order. However, the proper procedure to seek review of a decree or order relating to the modification of child support is to petition this court for a writ of certiorari pursuant to G.L.1956 (2000 Reenactment) § 14-1-52(b). We have “consistently held that questions involving the modification of child support are not reviewable by direct appeal.” McKenna v. Guglietto, 683 A.2d 369, 369 (R.I.1996) (mem.) (citing Almeida v. Almeida, 655 A.2d 696 (R.I.1995) (mem.); Lentz v. Lentz, 651 A.2d 1242 (R.I.1994); Cok v. Cok, 558 A.2d 205 (R.I. [1065]*10651989) (mem.)). Moreover, in McKenna, we took the “opportunity to pronounce that in the future we will consider only those matters that are properly before us, pursuant to § 14 — 1—52(b) and, only in the rarest of circumstances, will we allow any deviation from the required procedure.” 683 A.2d at 369. This case is not one that requires us to deviate from that rule.

For these reasons, we deny and dismiss the defendant’s appeal, the order is affirmed, and the papers in this case are remanded to the Family Court. .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This case came before this Court at a session in conference pursuant to Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the record and the parties’ memoranda, we proceed to decide the case at this time without further briefing or argument.

The defendant, acting pro se, has appealed from the entry of a Family Court order modifying his child support order. However, the proper procedure to seek review of a decree or order relating to the modification of child support is to petition this court for a writ of certiorari pursuant to G.L.1956 (2000 Reenactment) § 14-1-52(b). We have “consistently held that questions involving the modification of child support are not reviewable by direct appeal.” McKenna v. Guglietto, 683 A.2d 369, 369 (R.I.1996) (mem.) (citing Almeida v. Almeida, 655 A.2d 696 (R.I.1995) (mem.); Lentz v. Lentz, 651 A.2d 1242 (R.I.1994); Cok v. Cok, 558 A.2d 205 (R.I. [1065]*10651989) (mem.)). Moreover, in McKenna, we took the “opportunity to pronounce that in the future we will consider only those matters that are properly before us, pursuant to § 14 — 1—52(b) and, only in the rarest of circumstances, will we allow any deviation from the required procedure.” 683 A.2d at 369. This case is not one that requires us to deviate from that rule.

For these reasons, we deny and dismiss the defendant’s appeal, the order is affirmed, and the papers in this case are remanded to the Family Court. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

776 A.2d 1064, 2001 R.I. LEXIS 183, 2001 WL 894500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-britto-ri-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack