Bellows v. Bellows

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Bellows v. Bellows

353 A.2d 622, 116 R.I. 171, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1261

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 22, 1976

Docket74-233-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 353 A.2d 622 (Bellows v. Bellows) 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

Bellows v. Bellows, 353 A.2d 622, 116 R.I. 171, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1261 (R.I. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the respondent from a decree entered in the Family Court modifying the terms of a final decree of divorce with respect to support payments for two minor children of the parties. The respondent contends that the trial justice misconceived and overlooked material evidence in reaching his ultimate conclusion regarding the children's increased needs and the respondent’s ability to pay.

The record in this case is such that we are unable to perform our duty in passing on the respondent’s claim of error and in reviewing the decree appealed from. This is so because the decree contains only conclusionary statements with no reference to the facts on which they are based. Indeed, neither the decree nor the trial justice’s decision contain any express findings of fact on one of the essential issues in this appeal, namely, the respondent’s capacity to pay the increased needs of the children.

Because the record here is in some disarray and is such that we are unable, in the absence of express findings of fact, to conduct a meaningful review of the decree appealed from, we remand the case to the Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the respondent from a decree entered in the Family Court modifying the terms of a final decree of divorce with respect to support payments for two minor children of the parties. The respondent contends that the trial justice misconceived and overlooked material evidence in reaching his ultimate conclusion regarding the children's increased needs and the respondent’s ability to pay.

The record in this case is such that we are unable to perform our duty in passing on the respondent’s claim of error and in reviewing the decree appealed from. This is so because the decree contains only conclusionary statements with no reference to the facts on which they are based. Indeed, neither the decree nor the trial justice’s decision contain any express findings of fact on one of the essential issues in this appeal, namely, the respondent’s capacity to pay the increased needs of the children.

Because the record here is in some disarray and is such that we are unable, in the absence of express findings of fact, to conduct a meaningful review of the decree appealed from, we remand the case to the Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 A.2d 622, 116 R.I. 171, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellows-v-bellows-ri-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack