Eidam v. Eidam, No. 1228-A
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
| Writing for the Court | PAOLINO |
| Citation | 279 A.2d 413,108 R.I. 673 |
| Parties | Meredith M. EIDAM v. Luther P. EIDAM et al. ppeal. |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1228-A |
Page 413
v.
Luther P. EIDAM et al.
[108 R.I. 683]
Page 414
Johnson & Johnson, Martin Johnson, Providence, for plaintiff.Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum, Alfred Factor, Providence, for defendants.
OPINION.
PAOLINO, Justice.
The plaintiff brought this complaint for money damages and equitable relief against her former husband, Luther P. Eidam, and Sandra L. Mahoney, his present wife, by a writ of summons and an attachment dated October 30, 1969, attaching real estate at 50 Mark Drive, Cranston, Rhode Island. The real estate then stood in the name of Sandra L. Mahoney.
The complaint alleges in substance that plaintiff and defendant Luther P. Eidam were divorced by final decree entered on July 26, 1968; that her former husband has failed to make payments for the support of plaintiff and her three minor children in accordance with the provisions of such final decree and is currently in arrears in the amount of $7,000, which amount constitutes a judgment against him; that in September 1968, he conveyed his real estate at 50 Mark Drive to his present wife, Sandra L. Mahoney, for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff. The complaint prays for the following relief: (1) judgment against her former husband for $7,000, plus interest and costs; (2) that the conveyance to Sandra L. Mahoney be declared null and void and the judgment be declared a lien on said real estate; and (3) judgment for costs against defendant Sandra L. Mahoney.
The defendants, on November 24, 1969, filed a general denial and a motion to vacate the attachment. In support of this motion to vacate they filed supporting affidavits.
In his affidavit defendant Luther P. Eidam states that, in August 1968, plaintiff showed him letters from the two banks which had mortgages on the property at 50 Mark Drive advising that mortgage foreclosure proceedings be instituted because payments were in default; that his former wife asked him to sign an agreement to hold her harmless from any deficiency balance resulting from any foreclosure proceedings; that in consideration of his promise to hold her harmless, plaintiff executed a quitclaim [108 R.I. 675] deed conveying her interest time of the conveyance on September 7, time of the conveyance on September 78 1968, the property was subject to two mortgages totalling $31,500; that plaintiff went to the first mortgagee and requested that they remove her name from the mortgage and note because plaintiff had already conveyed the property to him; that at the time of the conveyance to him he did not owe his former wife any money; that on September 13, 1968, he conveyed whatever interest he had in the property in question to Sandra L. Mahoney for the sum of $1,500; and that at the time of such conveyance
Page 415
he did not owe plaintiff any money and was not in arrears in his support payments under the terms of the final decree of divorce.The defendant Sandra L. Mahoney, in her affidavit, states that on September 13, 1968, she purchased whatever interest Luther P. Eidam had in the real estate in question for the sum of $1,500; that at the time of such conveyance she was aware that the property had a fair market value of approximately $34,000 subject to two mortgages totaling $31,500; that from September 13, 1968, she paid both mortgages; and that she did not owe plaintiff any money then or at the time she filed the instant affidavit.
In reliance on their affidavits, defendants renewed their motion to vacate the attachments, basing the same on their claim that Sandra L. Mahoney was a bona fide purchaser for value of the property in dispute and that defendant, Luther P. Eidam, no longer had legal title thereto.
The plaintiff thereafter filed a counter-affidavit claiming that defendants' motion to vacate the attachment was in effect a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff further alleges therein that there is a valid equitable claim upon this property as there is a factual dispute on the issue of whether defendant Sandra L. Mahoney is in fact [108 R.I. 676] a bona fide purchaser for value of such property; that the property was or had been currently advertised for sale in the upper forty thousand dollars; that defendants were married and lived together in said premises within a few weeks after the transfer of the property to Sandra L. Mahoney; that they have continued to reside therein; that defendant Luther P. Eidam had not supported plaintiff or his children for over a year despite the court order contained in the final decree; and that when the property is sold defendants plan to reside in Chicago where her former husband had already moved upon obtaining employment there.
The motion to vacate the attachment was heard before a justice of the Superior Court. 1 After hearing oral arguments he rendered a brief bench decision. He found in substance that plaintiff gave up her interest in the real estate by deed; that the fact that her former husband decided to give it to some other party presented no problem because it was done immediately after the entry of the final divorce decree; and that there was obviously no time factor sufficient to allow any arrearage to build up. He held that since there was no arrearage due at the time of the conveyance from defendant Luther P. Eidam to defendant Sandra L. Mahoney, plaintiff's attachment was not sufficient in law to hold the property. He, therefore, granted defendants' motion to vacate the attachment as of that date and, on December 30, 1969, an order to that effect was entered in the Superior Court.
On January 19, 1970, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Superior Court pursuant to Super.R.Civ.P. 73. 2 The record indicates that she took no further [108 R.I. 677] steps to perfect her appeal until April 1970. It appears from statements in the briefs, which we shall treat as a stipulation of facts, that plaintiff did not pursue her appeal because she was notified by defendants' counsel that the property was being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dial Media, Inc., No. 78-129-A
...considerations so warrant or when it appears that prompt action is necessary to avoid imminent and irreparable harm. Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 279 A.2d 413 (1971); The Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works, 98 R.I. 167, 200 A.2d 580 (1964). Finally, according to Rule 54(b), ......
-
Cull v. Vadnais, No. 77-442-A
...to the general rule Page 1244 that litigants generally may not obtain piecemeal review of their case in this court. See Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 680, 279 A.2d 413, 417 (1971). The McAuslan court recognized that in many instances hardship and injury would result if this court were to re......
-
DeMaria v. Sabetta, No. 77-90-A
...To fall within this exception, however, the perceived injury must be shown to be clearly imminent and irreparable. Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 279 A.2d 413 (1971). See 1 Kent, R.I.Civ.Prac. § 73.4 at 512-14 In the present case, none of the orders from which appeal is taken results in inju......
-
Emergency Access Systems, Inc. v. Knox Associates, Inc., C.A. WC01-0161
...our state Rule 4(a), comporting with the federal Rule 4(a), is consistent with our policy against piecemeal appeals. See Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 680; 279 A.2d 413, 417 (1971) (holding that "[i]t is the settled rule that a litigant may not obtain a piecemeal review of his case by this ......
-
Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dial Media, Inc., No. 78-129-A
...considerations so warrant or when it appears that prompt action is necessary to avoid imminent and irreparable harm. Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 279 A.2d 413 (1971); The Atlantic Refining Co. v. Director of Public Works, 98 R.I. 167, 200 A.2d 580 (1964). Finally, according to Rule 54(b), ......
-
Cull v. Vadnais, No. 77-442-A
...to the general rule Page 1244 that litigants generally may not obtain piecemeal review of their case in this court. See Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 680, 279 A.2d 413, 417 (1971). The McAuslan court recognized that in many instances hardship and injury would result if this court were to re......
-
DeMaria v. Sabetta, No. 77-90-A
...To fall within this exception, however, the perceived injury must be shown to be clearly imminent and irreparable. Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 279 A.2d 413 (1971). See 1 Kent, R.I.Civ.Prac. § 73.4 at 512-14 In the present case, none of the orders from which appeal is taken results in inju......
-
Emergency Access Systems, Inc. v. Knox Associates, Inc., C.A. WC01-0161
...our state Rule 4(a), comporting with the federal Rule 4(a), is consistent with our policy against piecemeal appeals. See Eidam v. Eidam, 108 R.I. 673, 680; 279 A.2d 413, 417 (1971) (holding that "[i]t is the settled rule that a litigant may not obtain a piecemeal review of his case by this ......