DiMaruo v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

DiMaruo v. Taylor

599 A.2d 1358, 1991 R.I. LEXIS 214, 1991 WL 263666

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedDecember 12, 1991

DocketNo. 91-262-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 599 A.2d 1358 (DiMaruo v. Taylor) 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

DiMaruo v. Taylor, 599 A.2d 1358, 1991 R.I. LEXIS 214, 1991 WL 263666 (R.I. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter was before the Supreme Court on an order issued to the defendant to appear and show cause why her appeal should not be denied and dismissed. In this case the defendant had appealed from a Superior Court order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs brought an action seeking the discharge of a mortgage recorded against their property.

After hearing counsel for the parties in oral argument and after reviewing the memoranda submitted, it is the opinion of this court that cause has not been shown. The court is of the opinion that the notation on the amortization schedule “Paid in Full” and signed by defendant is conclusive and not ambiguous. See Industrial National Bank v. Peloso, 121 R.I. 305, 397 A.2d 1312 (1979); Elias v. Youngken, 493 A.2d 158, 163 (R.I.1985); Chapman v. Vendresca, 426 A.2d 262, 264 (R.I.1981).

Therefore, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.

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

ORDER

This matter was before the Supreme Court on an order issued to the defendant to appear and show cause why her appeal should not be denied and dismissed. In this case the defendant had appealed from a Superior Court order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. The plaintiffs brought an action seeking the discharge of a mortgage recorded against their property.

After hearing counsel for the parties in oral argument and after reviewing the memoranda submitted, it is the opinion of this court that cause has not been shown. The court is of the opinion that the notation on the amortization schedule “Paid in Full” and signed by defendant is conclusive and not ambiguous. See Industrial National Bank v. Peloso, 121 R.I. 305, 397 A.2d 1312 (1979); Elias v. Youngken, 493 A.2d 158, 163 (R.I.1985); Chapman v. Vendresca, 426 A.2d 262, 264 (R.I.1981).

Therefore, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 A.2d 1358, 1991 R.I. LEXIS 214, 1991 WL 263666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimaruo-v-taylor-ri-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack