Default Judgment

Defendant was charged with a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). The Defendant failed to appear for trial and a default judgment was entered. The Defendant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment, a new trial date was set, and the Defendant failed again to appear. A second default judgment was entered. The Defendant had mailed the Traffic Tribunal a letter, postmarked the day before the trial date, stating he could not appear for the second trial date because he and his family had tested positive for Covid-19 and were ordered to quarantine. The Trial Judge passed on the Defendant’s motion and entered judgment by mail. The Defendant appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Defendant argued that he missed his second trial date because of his Covid-19 quarantine. The Appeals Panel noted that a motion to vacate default judgment “is within the discretion of the trial justice before whom the motion is brought” and “such findings will not be disturbed upon appeal unless there is an error or law or an abuse of that discretion.” Phoenix Construction Co., Inc. v. Hanson, 491 A.2d 330, 332 (R.I. 1985) (citing Friendly Homes, Inc. v. Shareholders and Creditors of Royal Homestead Land Co., 477 A.2d 934, 937 (R.I. 1984)). The Defendant was required to show the Hearing Judge that he failed to appear at his trial date due to “excusable neglect” and “that the circumstances that caused the party to miss a deadline were out of that party or counsel’s control.” Rivera v. Rose, 14 A.3d 939, 945 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Boranian v. Richer, 983 A.2d 834, 840 (R.I. 2009)). The Appeals Panel found that the Defendant had a valid reason for not attending his second trial date but because he failed to provide notice to the court that he was unable to attend the hearing until after the trial date the missed appearance was due to his own “carelessness [or] inattention.” The Appeals Panel found the Trial Judge’s decision was not erroneous because the Defendant could have reached out to the court prior to the trial date and did not. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied the appeal.State of Rhode Island v. Pena No. T22-0002 (February 23, 2022).pdf