05/22/2013
Defendant appealed the magistrate’s decision denying Defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered on the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (operating without insurance) and § 31-3-32 (expiration of registration). At his arraignment, the Defendant did not appear and a default judgment was entered. The Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate the default judgment but then failed to appear at that hearing and the motion was denied. Defendant argued that his absence from both hearings should be excused because he was confused by the process. The Panel held that Defendant was fully aware of the dates of his hearings, and without evidence that his failure to appear was due to some reason beyond his control, the magistrate’s decision to deny the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.
City of East Providence v. Hudson Carvalho, C.A. No. T12-0087 (May 22, 2013).pdf