Hasman v. Hasman

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hasman v. Hasman

655 A.2d 256, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 70, 1995 WL 130765

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 23, 1995

DocketNo. 94-15-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 655 A.2d 256 (Hasman v. Hasman) 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

Hasman v. Hasman, 655 A.2d 256, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 70, 1995 WL 130765 (R.I. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court on March 15, 1995, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown and that this is not an appealable decision. Pursuant to G.L.1956 (1981 Reenactment) 14-l-52(b) matters involving modification of child support or alimony are reviewable only by writ of certiorari. See Pontbriand v. Pontbriand, 608 A.2d 658 (R.I.1992).

However, even if defendant’s appeal were properly before us we conclude that defendant’s appeal is without merit since the order [257]*257appealed from is a consent order that was entered into by agreement of the parties without hearing. The terms of that order were voluntarily agreed to by both parties and were not imposed by court fiat. Thus, the terms of that order cannot be challenged in the absence of fraud, mutual mistake, or actual absence of consent. See DeFusco v. Giorgio, 440 A.2d 727 (R.I.1982).

Consequently, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed. The order appealed from is affirmed and the papers of this case are remanded to Superior Court.

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 March 15, 1995, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown and that this is not an appealable decision. Pursuant to G.L.1956 (1981 Reenactment) 14-l-52(b) matters involving modification of child support or alimony are reviewable only by writ of certiorari. See Pontbriand v. Pontbriand, 608 A.2d 658 (R.I.1992).

However, even if defendant’s appeal were properly before us we conclude that defendant’s appeal is without merit since the order [257]*257appealed from is a consent order that was entered into by agreement of the parties without hearing. The terms of that order were voluntarily agreed to by both parties and were not imposed by court fiat. Thus, the terms of that order cannot be challenged in the absence of fraud, mutual mistake, or actual absence of consent. See DeFusco v. Giorgio, 440 A.2d 727 (R.I.1982).

Consequently, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed. The order appealed from is affirmed and the papers of this case are remanded to Superior Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 A.2d 256, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 70, 1995 WL 130765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hasman-v-hasman-ri-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack