Cabillo v. Cabillo

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Cabillo v. Cabillo

317 A.2d 866, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 400

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 1974

Docket7732 to 7738, 7740

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 317 A.2d 866 (Cabillo v. Cabillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cabillo v. Cabillo, 317 A.2d 866, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 400 (D.C. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants in these consolidated appeals petitioned in forma pauperis under D.C. Code 1973, § 15-712, to be relieved from payment of costs with respect to their actions for either divorce or annulment. They alleged in their affidavits that they were unable, because of their poverty, to pay the costs of the action and still provide the necessities of life for their children and themselves. The affidavits further reveal that all of the appellants except Mrs. Conner (Case No. 7740) are on welfare; Mrs. Conner’s income, however, is only slightly above the welfare standard.

Under these circumstances the trial court was controlled by Harris v. Harris, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 424 F.2d 806, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 826, 91 S.Ct. 50, 27 L.Ed.2d 55 (1970), and required to grant appellants’ petitions to proceed in forma pauperis.

Furthermore, because these petitions were denied by the trial court, appellants were effectively barred from proceeding upon their claimed right to a dissolution of their marriages. Therefore, appellants were deprived not only of their statutory right under Section 15-712, but also their right to due process under the Constitution. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S. Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).

*867 We accordingly reverse the orders of the trial court and direct that appellants be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Section 15-712.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants in these consolidated appeals petitioned in forma pauperis under D.C. Code 1973, § 15-712, to be relieved from payment of costs with respect to their actions for either divorce or annulment. They alleged in their affidavits that they were unable, because of their poverty, to pay the costs of the action and still provide the necessities of life for their children and themselves. The affidavits further reveal that all of the appellants except Mrs. Conner (Case No. 7740) are on welfare; Mrs. Conner’s income, however, is only slightly above the welfare standard.

Under these circumstances the trial court was controlled by Harris v. Harris, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 424 F.2d 806, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 826, 91 S.Ct. 50, 27 L.Ed.2d 55 (1970), and required to grant appellants’ petitions to proceed in forma pauperis.

Furthermore, because these petitions were denied by the trial court, appellants were effectively barred from proceeding upon their claimed right to a dissolution of their marriages. Therefore, appellants were deprived not only of their statutory right under Section 15-712, but also their right to due process under the Constitution. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S. Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).

*867 We accordingly reverse the orders of the trial court and direct that appellants be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Section 15-712.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 A.2d 866, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabillo-v-cabillo-dc-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack