de Robbio v. de Robbio, No. 687.

CourtRhode Island Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFLYNN, Chief Justice.
Citation200 A. 480
Docket NumberNo. 687.
Decision Date30 June 1938
PartiesDE ROBBIO v. DE ROBBIO.
200 A. 480

DE ROBBIO
v.
DE ROBBIO.

No. 687.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 30, 1938.


Petition for a writ of certiorari by Joseph De Robbio against Maria De Robbio, to quash the record of certain proceedings alleged to have been entered illegally in a divorce case between the parties.

Relief granted as prayed.

Frank H. Wildes, of Providence, for petitioner. Luigi De Pasquale, William G. Troy, and Herman D. Ferrara, all of Providence, for respondent.

FLYNN, Chief Justice.

&gt

This petition for a writ of certiorari, directed to the superior court, seeks to quash the record of certain proceedings which allegedly have been entered illegally by that court in a divorce case. Pursuant to the writ and citation, which were issued, the papers and records of the proceedings in that case have been certified to this court, and the respondent Maria De Robbio has entered an appearance through her counsel.

The following facts appearing in the certified papers and records and in this petition are necessary to understand the prayer for relief. The petitioner Joseph De Robbio brought against his wife, Maria De Robbio, the original divorce petition which was entered in the superior court on October 27, 1936. That petition was heard on December

200 A. 481

28, 1936, and resulted in a decision awarding to the petitioner a divorce and the custody of two minor children. An interlocutory decree in accordance with such decision, was entered on the following day; and, after six months a final decree of divorce, granting also to the petitioner the custody of the two children, was entered on July 1, 1937.

Some five months later, in December, 1937, the respondent Maria De Robbio filed, within the closed divorce case, a motion to set aside the final and interlocutory decrees previously entered therein. This motion was apparently withdrawn and a separate miscellaneous petition was then brought by Maria De Robbio against the petitioner Joseph De Robbio for the purpose of setting aside, on the ground of fraud, the final and interlocutory decrees previously entered in the divorce case. The miscellaneous petition was later heard and granted and a decree accordingly was entered therein on January 12, 1938, setting aside the interlocutory and final decrees theretofore entered in the original divorce case. From such decree, entered upon the miscellaneous petition, the respondent therein (petitioner here) duly filed, on February 9, 1938, his claim and reasons of appeal and his order for a transcript of the evidence.

However, on January 14, 1938, two days after entry of that decree, Maria De Robbio filed within the original divorce case wherein she was the respondent, a motion in the nature of a motion, pendente lite, for custody of the minor children, allowances for the support and maintenance of the respondent and her children, for witness and counsel fees, and for certain household allowances, including the use of furniture. The hearing upon this motion was continued to February 18, 1938, by which time the petitioner's claim and reasons of appeal from the decree, entered in the miscellaneous petition, had been filed and the date for the filing of a transcript had been fixed.

The motion of the respondent for custody and for allowances, pendente lite, was heard and granted on February 18, 1938, over the petitioner's objection and a decree accordingly was entered within the original divorce...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Rotondo v. Rotondo, No. 9661
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • August 17, 1956
    ...of the decision for the period during which the case was pending, thus distinguishing it from De Robbio v. De Robbio, 61 R.I. 208, 212, 200 A. 480, 482, where no such motion was made. As indicated by the trial justice in his decision the order for temporary support was based on this motion,......
  • Turner v. Turner, No. 37957
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 30, 1958
    ...lite in the sum of $200 per month. Plaintiff asserts that this was error and cites in support thereof De Robbio v. De Robbio, 61 R.I. 208, 200 A. 480, in which the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held where the trial court vacated an interlocutory decree, under the circumstances, it was witho......
  • De Robbio v. De Robbio, No. 697.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1940
    ...respondent appeals. Appeal of respondent denied and dismissed, decree affirmed, and cause remanded for further proceedings. See, also, 200 A. 480. Luigi DePasquale and Arthur Falcone, both of Providence, for Frank H. Wildes, of Providence, for respondent. BAKER, Justice. This is an appeal b......
3 cases
  • Rotondo v. Rotondo, No. 9661
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • August 17, 1956
    ...of the decision for the period during which the case was pending, thus distinguishing it from De Robbio v. De Robbio, 61 R.I. 208, 212, 200 A. 480, 482, where no such motion was made. As indicated by the trial justice in his decision the order for temporary support was based on this motion,......
  • Turner v. Turner, No. 37957
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 30, 1958
    ...lite in the sum of $200 per month. Plaintiff asserts that this was error and cites in support thereof De Robbio v. De Robbio, 61 R.I. 208, 200 A. 480, in which the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held where the trial court vacated an interlocutory decree, under the circumstances, it was witho......
  • De Robbio v. De Robbio, No. 697.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1940
    ...respondent appeals. Appeal of respondent denied and dismissed, decree affirmed, and cause remanded for further proceedings. See, also, 200 A. 480. Luigi DePasquale and Arthur Falcone, both of Providence, for Frank H. Wildes, of Providence, for respondent. BAKER, Justice. This is an appeal b......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT