Kass v. Kass

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Kass v. Kass

615 A.2d 1021, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 269, 1992 WL 352461

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 13, 1992

DocketNo. 92-104-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 615 A.2d 1021 (Kass v. Kass) 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

Kass v. Kass, 615 A.2d 1021, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 269, 1992 WL 352461 (R.I. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument November 10,1992 pursuant to a notice which had directed the defendant to appear and show cause why his appeal should not be summarily denied and dismissed.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. The trial justice was correct in holding that there was no basis to reopen and modify a property settlement agreement merely because of a Superior Court judgment requiring payment of four promissory notes that had been in exis[1022]*1022tence and known to the defendant for many years prior to the property settlement agreement.

Consequently, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed. The order of the Family Court declining to reopen and modify the property settlement agreement is affirmed.

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

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument November 10,1992 pursuant to a notice which had directed the defendant to appear and show cause why his appeal should not be summarily denied and dismissed.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. The trial justice was correct in holding that there was no basis to reopen and modify a property settlement agreement merely because of a Superior Court judgment requiring payment of four promissory notes that had been in exis[1022]*1022tence and known to the defendant for many years prior to the property settlement agreement.

Consequently, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed. The order of the Family Court declining to reopen and modify the property settlement agreement is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 A.2d 1021, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 269, 1992 WL 352461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kass-v-kass-ri-1992.