Zito v. East Side Associates

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Zito v. East Side Associates

381 A.2d 1364, 119 R.I. 629, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 594

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 24, 1978

Docket77-349-M.P

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 381 A.2d 1364 (Zito v. East Side Associates) 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

Zito v. East Side Associates, 381 A.2d 1364, 119 R.I. 629, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 594 (R.I. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for certiorari. The record indicates that on August 19, 1977, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement to reconvey to the petitioner a one-half partnership interest in a government subsidized housing project, legal title to which at the relevant time was in the name of the respondent partnership. The petitioner claims that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) suggested that he withdraw from the partnership in order to allow a closing and then resume his status as a partner. He states that he withdrew from the partnership in consideration of the respondent’s promise that he would be readmitted as a partner and that his one-half interest in the partnership would be reconveyed to him. He states that he has been denied readmission and reconveyance. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent and placed a lis pendens on the land. The respondent denies all of the petitioner’s allegations. The respondent filed a mo *630 tion to remove and void the lis pendens. On September 12, 1977, a Superior Court justice ordered the lis pendens declared null and void. The petitioner filed his petition for certiorari in this court on October 6, 1977.

Martin L. Greemoald, for petitioner. Edwards <6- Angelí, Robert G. Flanders, Jr., for respondents.

An order vacating a notice of lis pendens has the requisite finality on a matter which is collateral to the main action so as to be immediately appealable within the provisions of G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-24-1.

Since the petitioner had an adequate remedy of appeal under §9-24-1 certiorari will not lie. White v. White, 70 R.I. 48, 36 A.2d 661 (1944). The petition for certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice Paolino participated in the decision but retired prior to its announcement.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for certiorari. The record indicates that on August 19, 1977, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement to reconvey to the petitioner a one-half partnership interest in a government subsidized housing project, legal title to which at the relevant time was in the name of the respondent partnership. The petitioner claims that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) suggested that he withdraw from the partnership in order to allow a closing and then resume his status as a partner. He states that he withdrew from the partnership in consideration of the respondent’s promise that he would be readmitted as a partner and that his one-half interest in the partnership would be reconveyed to him. He states that he has been denied readmission and reconveyance. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent and placed a lis pendens on the land. The respondent denies all of the petitioner’s allegations. The respondent filed a mo *630 tion to remove and void the lis pendens. On September 12, 1977, a Superior Court justice ordered the lis pendens declared null and void. The petitioner filed his petition for certiorari in this court on October 6, 1977.

Martin L. Greemoald, for petitioner. Edwards <6- Angelí, Robert G. Flanders, Jr., for respondents.

An order vacating a notice of lis pendens has the requisite finality on a matter which is collateral to the main action so as to be immediately appealable within the provisions of G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-24-1.

Since the petitioner had an adequate remedy of appeal under §9-24-1 certiorari will not lie. White v. White, 70 R.I. 48, 36 A.2d 661 (1944). The petition for certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice Paolino participated in the decision but retired prior to its announcement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 A.2d 1364, 119 R.I. 629, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zito-v-east-side-associates-ri-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack