Your primary goal in Providence Family Court should be to avoid your divorce turning into a train wreck similar to the cases set forth in this article. The RI divorce cases described below were so out of control, costly and contentious that they can only be described as “train wrecks.” Thankfully, I was not involved, in any way, with these cases! If you are in need of a RI divorce attorney contact a Rhode Island divorce lawyer.
Divorce & Custody Nuclear Wars- The Top 3
Before you go to war in Rhode Island Family Court- Consider these Cases! After reading these cases, a divorce settlement does not seem like a bad idea? After learning of these divorce wars, divorce mediation may seem like a more feasible option? Below are actual quotes from the Rhode Island Supreme Court from the following Cases:
- Cardinale v. Cardinale
- Fossa v Fossa
- Bergquist v. Cesario
Divorce in RI mess #1 – Cardinale v. Cardinale
This unfortunate and ridiculous RI divorce trial is notable and infamous for four primary reasons:
- The animosity, lack of civility and rancor between the divorce attorneys involved in the cause of action.
- 6 separate appeals to the Rhode Island Supreme Court during the course of the case!
- 35 court orders by the RI Supreme Court during the lower court divorce proceeding!
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court actually decided the divorce trial rather than the trial justice.
- The highest court in RI discharged the trial justice from handling the case. This may be unprecedented.
The unfortunate license plate feud which cause wife to barf in Court
Bitterly contested, procedurally defective, bifurcated divorce
“The plaintiff, Joanne T. (DiCarlo) Cardinale (Joanne), and the defendant, Norman A. Cardinale (Norman), are no strangers to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. During the last four years, the Cardinales repeatedly have come before us seeking emergency relief and filing petitions for writs of certiorari in connection with their bitterly contested, procedurally defective, bifurcated divorce proceeding. During that time, this Court has issued no fewer than thirty-five separate orders and granted six writs of certiorari. Indeed, if we administered a frequent flyer program, the Cardinales undoubtedly would be platinum members.” Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Joanne T. CARDINALE v. Norman A. CARDINALE. No. 2004-58-Appeal. Decided: January 9, 2006 Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and ROBINSON, JJ. Maureen Gemma, Esq., Cranston, for Plaintiff. James A. Bigos, Esq., for Defendant. OPINION http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ri-supreme-court/1090682.html “Thus, on January 2, 2003, the divorce proceeding was bifurcated, and the parties embarked upon this long, painful, bitter dispute over the remnants of the marital estate.” Id.
Trial justice refuses to decide case forthwith
“Once the case returned to Family Court, the trial justice issued another order declining to recuse from the proceeding. Unfortunately, the trial justice, speaking as “an officer of the court,” chose to provide commentary about his view of this Court’s lack of appreciation of his caseload and the day-to-day workings of the Family Court. Specifically, he took issue with our directive to decide this case “forthwith” and declared, “I agree with [Norman’s counsel] that I don’t think the [the Supreme Court], the folks sitting up on the hill, understand fully what goes on here, of the caseloads involved.” The trial justice did not comply with our directive that the case be decided forthwith.” Id.
Acrimonious proceeding and rancor between those involved is the reason RI top Court decides the case
“The level of rancor between the parties and counsel and the unfortunate posture taken by the trial justice have prompted us to direct the remedy in this case. Although we seldom deem it necessary to resort to our inherent supervisory powers to fashion remedies, we have done so on occasion to end seemingly interminable litigation. This case presents us with such a controversy.” …”As we have observed, the pool of marital assets remaining after four years of litigation has been diminished substantially by this acrimonious proceeding and Norman’s slipshod and evasive business practices.”
Trial Justice failed to keep control of the divorce proceeding
“In her brief to this Court Joanne has alleged that the conduct and comments of the trial justice suggest bias that would lead a reasonable person to question his impartiality. This was not a simple case, and its difficulty was greatly compounded by the fact that counsel were antagonistic and caustic toward each other and the parties. Although we do not undertake this discussion lightly, the level of acrimony contained in this record requires our review. The lack of civility between counsel in this case is regrettable and inappropriate. It was the responsibility of the trial justice to control the proceedings and counsel. He failed to do so.” Id. Moreover, the trial justice’s comments about the numerous orders issued by this Court were inappropriate, if not petulant. The plaintiff has alleged that “[h]er decision to seek instructions from this Court had an immediate impact on the trial judge’s attitude, much like throwing gas on a fire.” Id.
Trial Justice benched because of improper commentary
This commentary by a judicial officer is improper and suggests a preconceived or settled opinion against a litigant, such that the trial justice should be excused from further responsibilities in this case. Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 118 R.I. 608, 621, 375 A.2d 911, 917 (1977) (citing State v. Buckley, 104 R.I. 317, 322, 244 A.2d 254, 257 (1968)).”Id. “While we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not conduct himself with the demeanor that we expect from a judicial officer, our correction of his rulings pursuant to our inherent power to craft a remedy, means that the parties were not ultimately deprived of their due process.” Id.
Divorce war #2 : Fossa v Fossa | RI divorce at Rhode Island Supreme Court
- unnecessary and unseemly contentiousness
- disconcerting case
- divorce battle – divorce war
- Divorce in RI
“Apparent unnecessary and unseemly contentiousness and perhaps “gamesmanship”
“This case has been pending in the Family Court since October of 2000, and numerous lawyers and judicial officers have been involved with it at one time or another. The degree of apparent unnecessary and unseemly contentiousness (and perhaps “gamesmanship” as well) reflected by the record is disconcerting. Quite frankly, the travel of this case reminds us of the mythical case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which Dickens so devastatingly satirized over 150 years ago in Bleak House. He describes that case in pertinent part as follows: “[Jarndyce v. Jarndyce ] drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes, without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises.” Charles Dickens, Bleak House 7-8 (George Ford & Sylvère Monod eds., W.W. Norton & Co.1985) (1853). We wish to emphasize, however, that the Rhode Island court system is not the Court of Chancery of the Victorian era, and we are determined to see to it that our cherished system never descends to anything approaching that ignominious level.” Supreme Court No. 2004-89-Appeal. (W00-576) Kerri D. Fossa v. Richard D. Fossa: Present: Williams, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Suttell, and Robinson, JJ. O P I N I O N PER CURIAM. https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/OpinionsOrders/pdf-files/04-89.pdf
Plaintiff’s counsel lacks candor to the RI Supreme Court
“The defendant’s allegations in his written and oral submissions to this Court relative to perceived misconduct on the part of attorneys or judicial officers should be directed, if he chooses, to the appropriate agencies and not to this Court in the first instance. We feel obliged to add that we were dismayed to note the apparent lack of candor on the part of plaintiff’s counsel at oral argument when certain questions pertaining to defendant’s allegations were posed to him by the Court.” Id.
Worst divorce in RI #3: Bergquist v. Cesario
- Love triangle
- Like a soap opera
- Contentious and acrimonious
- relentless rancor
“A Puccini opera, or at least a mid-afternoon soap opera. It might be described not so much as a love triangle, as a romantic rectangle.”