Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a Family Court judgment granting the defendant's counterclaim for divorce after the plaintiff failed to appear and failed to comply with court orders. The court held that proceeding on the improperly timed compulsory counterclaim was not reversible error because the plaintiff was not prejudiced, had not answered or specifically objected, and could not manipulate the proceedings through persistent absence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court committed reversible error by proceeding to trial on Durkin's compulsory counterclaim for divorce even though it was filed after her initial answer and Wood had not filed an answer to the counterclaim.
- Whether Wood preserved his objection to proceeding on the counterclaim for appellate review.
Holdings
- Proceeding on Durkin's counterclaim was not reversible error because the Family Court could have permitted the counterclaim by amendment, Wood was not prejudiced or disadvantaged, and he was adequately apprised of the divorce issues.
- The Supreme Court would not review the objection because counsel failed to articulate the basis for the objection with sufficient specificity at trial.
Key quotations
“In the case before us, however, we are not convinced that the trial justice’s decision to proceed on the compulsory counterclaim was reversible error.” (798 A.2d at 954)
“It is well settled that this [C]ourt will not review issues that were not preserved for appeal by a specific objection at trial.” (798 A.2d at 954)
Factual background
Wood filed a complaint for divorce, and Durkin initially answered without filing a counterclaim. Durkin later filed a counterclaim for divorce shortly before the scheduled trial, while Wood neither answered nor objected to it and repeatedly failed to appear in connection with the proceedings. The Family Court dismissed Wood's claim, proceeded on Durkin's counterclaim over counsel's objection, and entered a divorce judgment for Durkin on the ground of irreconcilable differences.
Procedural history
Wood filed a divorce complaint in July 1997. Durkin initially answered without asserting a counterclaim, later filed for temporary support, and ultimately filed a counterclaim for divorce shortly before trial. Wood did not answer or object specifically to the counterclaim, failed to appear at required proceedings, and his divorce claim was dismissed when trial proceeded in his absence. The Family Court entered judgment granting Durkin a divorce on irreconcilable-differences grounds. The Supreme Court summarily decided the appeal, denied and dismissed it, and affirmed the judgment.
Remand instructions
The papers in the case were remanded to the Family Court.