Default Judgment

Defendant appealed a hearing magistrate’s decision denying a motion to vacate a default judgment. Defendant had a default judgment rendered against him after he failed to appear at his trial due to mistakenly writing down the wrong trial date. Defendant argued that the hearing judge erred by applying the excusable neglect standard instead of the inadvertence standard. The Appeals Panel rejected that argument, noting that the two standards are essentially the same, and proceeded to discuss the excusable neglect standard.  To establish excusable neglect, a party must show that the mistake was caused by circumstances that were out of the party’s control. See Santos v. D. Laikos, Inc., 139 A.3d 394, 399 (R.I. 2016). Here, Defendant’s mistake was “squarely within [his] control.” As such, the Appeals Panel held that the denial of the motion to vacate did not constitute an error because Defendant’s mistake did not meet the necessary standard for a finding of excusable neglect since the mistake was within Defendant’s control. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the hearing judge’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Rahim Caldwell, No. T18-0015 (December 11, 2018).pdf