Cok v. Cok, s. 84-585-A
| Citation | 533 A.2d 534 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 84-585-A,s. 84-585-A |
| Parties | Gladys L. COK v. Leo COK. ppeal, 86-176-Appeal and 87-155-Appeal. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
These matters are before the Supreme Court on an order consolidating them and placing them on the show-cause calendar for argument.
In an interlocutory judgment Gladys Cok, Ph.D., and Leo Cok, M.D., were granted an absolute divorce based on irreconcilable differences following a protracted hearing in Family Court. Both parties appealed to this court. The Family Court proceeding was fully examined and discussed in our opinion in Cok v. Cok, 479 A.2d 1184 (R.I.1984). In that appeal and in the matters now before us the parties have appeared without counsel.
Before the court at this time are, by Gladys Cok's own count, eighteen appeals by her from various actions and orders of the Family Court. Leo Cok presented oral argument on one issue and an attorney on his behalf submitted a memorandum and argued a separate issue.
We have reviewed in detail, the issues raised by Gladys Cok and we are of the opinion that all of them are blatantly frivolous. What we have here are attempts to appeal from orders that are interlocutory and efforts to relitigate matters already decided in this court's opinion on the original appeal. Also, Gladys Cok continues to argue matters that have been finally adjudicated and which are not now before this court for review. An example of this last category is her relentless insistence that the Family Court had lost jurisdiction over this case as a result of her attempt at removal of the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 (1973). 1 In a written decision and order, the United States District Court judge set forth in detail the reasons why this case was not removable. He ruled that the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal Court was never invoked, and he stated specifically that Gladys Cok's filings in the Federal Court were legally insufficient to effect removal. That decision and order became final when the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that it was not reviewable. Nevertheless, Gladys Cok continues to insist that the Family Court had lost jurisdiction. She asserts again and again that the appointment of a commissioner to sell certain real estate owned by these irrevocably estranged parties was void for lack of jurisdiction. The fact is that the Family Court at no time lost jurisdiction. Furthermore, we confirm the appointment of the commissioner to act under the direction of the Family Court in these matters. Another source of Gladys Cok's appeals is her insistence on a right to jury trial in these matters, all of which are ancillary to divorce proceedings, in which trial by jury has never been afforded.
We would point out to Gladys Cok that this court does not intend to entertain repeated, continuous, and frivolous appeals from every decision of the Family Court simply because she disagrees or disapproves of each one. The judicial officers of the state and the administrative personnel of our courts try at all times to be as helpful with and as understanding as possible of the procedural problems faced by pro se litigants. However, this policy of procedural leniency has its limits. We will not permit persons who abuse that policy to harass our personnel or monopolize their time with issues that are utterly without merit.
Leo Cok, like his former wife, continues to argue against the approval of a report and bill for services rendered by the guardian ad litem who was appointed by the Family Court for the minor child of the parties. In Cok v. Cok, 479 A.2d at 1190, this court approved the appointment of the guardian ad litem. We found that the action of the parties more than justified the appointment. We conceded that these appointments might well have made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cok v. Forte
...Court which was asked to hear 18 appeals brought by plaintiff concerning various actions and orders of the Family Court. Cok v. Cok, 533 A.2d 534 (R.I.1987), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 801, 109 S.Ct. 30, 102 L.Ed.2d 10 (1988). The Court found the appeals "blatantly frivolous,"......
-
Cok v. Cosentino, 88-2086
...necessity and propriety of the conservator and guardian ad litem appointments. Cok v. Cok, 479 A.2d 1184, 1190 (R.I.1984); Cok v. Cok, 533 A.2d 534, 535 (R.I.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 30, 102 L.Ed.2d 10 (1988). These decisions confirm that Cok can plead no set of facts t......
-
Lara v. Fay
...of law. The March 1986 order was vacated and the case was remanded to the Family Court for reconsideration of the issue. Cok v. Cok, 533 A.2d 534, 536 (R.I.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 801 (1988). A subsequent appeal, on unrelated issues, Cok v. Cok, 558 A.2d 205, 206 (R.I.1989), refers to......
-
Cok v. Cok
...of her consolidated appeals argued in respect to a number of issues that have been previously decided by this court in Cok v. Cok, 533 A.2d 534 (R.I.1987) (Cok II ), and Cok v. Cok, 479 A.2d 1184 (R.I.1984) (Cok I ). It is not our intention to respond again to issues that have already been ......