Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Citation
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Parent Document
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-03-11
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Catelli v. Fleetwood, 842 A.2d 1078 (2004)
- Section 34-18-35
- Section 34-18-35
- Section 34-18-35
- Section 34-18-35
- Section 34-18-35
- Section 34-18-35
- Section 34-18-35
- Section 34-18-35
Full Text
789 charsOn August 28, 2002, a five-day demand notice pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 34-18-35 was mailed to defendants, stating that they were $882 in arrears. Shortly thereafter, Catelli filed a trespass and ejectment action against them in the Third Division District Court. The defendants failed to file an answer to the complaint for eviction in the District Court. Moreover, defendant Fleetwood did not appear at the District Court hearing, and thus was defaulted. Sutphen appeared pro se, but maintained that until the night before the hearing, he thought that he would be represented through Rhode Island Legal Services. As a result of the hearing, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for possession of the apartment and back rent of $980. The defendants timely appealed to Superior Court.