Ashness v. Ballem Estate

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Ashness v. Ballem Estate

633 A.2d 260, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 242, 1993 WL 489686

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

DocketNo. 92-657-A

StatusPublished

This text of 633 A.2d 260 (Ashness v. Ballem Estate) 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

Ashness v. Ballem Estate, 633 A.2d 260, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 242, 1993 WL 489686 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court on November 10, 1993, pursuant to an order requiring the defendants to appeal’ and to show cause why the issues raised in their appeal should not be summarily decided.

The defendants appeal a Superior Court order denying their motion to vacate a default judgment. The motion justice erred in not allowing the defendants to redeem the property. We hereby remand the case with instructions to the trial justice to allow redemption. The defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs legal fees associated with this matter, including the costs of appeal to this court.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that principles of equity would render the forfeiture of defendants’ interest unconscionable in the circumstances of this ease.

The ruling of the motion justice is reversed and the defendants’ appeal is sustained. The case is remanded consistent with the instructions herein.

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

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court on November 10, 1993, pursuant to an order requiring the defendants to appeal’ and to show cause why the issues raised in their appeal should not be summarily decided.

The defendants appeal a Superior Court order denying their motion to vacate a default judgment. The motion justice erred in not allowing the defendants to redeem the property. We hereby remand the case with instructions to the trial justice to allow redemption. The defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs legal fees associated with this matter, including the costs of appeal to this court.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that principles of equity would render the forfeiture of defendants’ interest unconscionable in the circumstances of this ease.

The ruling of the motion justice is reversed and the defendants’ appeal is sustained. The case is remanded consistent with the instructions herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 260, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 242, 1993 WL 489686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashness-v-ballem-estate-ri-1993.