Opinion
October 30, 1975.
PRESENT: Roberts, C.J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.
1. DIVORCE. Collection of Unpaid Alimony or Support Installments. Form of Action. Accrued but unpaid installments of alimony or child support orders may be collected by contempt proceedings, issuance of an execution for failure to comply with the decree of court, or an action of law upon a judgment.
2. COURTS. Collection of Unpaid Support Order. Law Action. Jurisdiction of Family and Superior Courts. Pointing to limited jurisdiction of Family Court, Supreme Court holds that Superior Court was not trespassing on Family Court's jurisdiction in rejecting the defendant-husband's contention that an action at law to collect a child support order is cognizable only in the Family Court, and in granting plaintiff-wife's motion for summary judgment for unpaid installments. G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 8-10-3, as amended.
CIVIL ACTION in Superior Court to collect unpaid installments of support for child of the parties, before Supreme Court on appeal of defendant-husband from summary judgment entered pursuant to decision of Fanning, J. (retired), heard and appeal denied and dismissed, judgment affirmed and case remitted to Superior Court for further proceedings.
Kirshenbaum Kirshenbaum, Albert John Mainelli, for plaintiff.
James Cardono, for defendant.
Longstanding practice in domestic relations matters permits collection of accrued but unpaid installments of alimony or child support orders by contempt proceedings, issuance of an execution for failure to comply with the decree of court, or an action at law as upon a judgment. Shaw v. Shaw, 81 R.I. 487, 490-91, 104 A.2d 754, 756 (1954); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 53 R.I. 326, 329, 166 A. 686, 688 (1933); Boyden v. Boyden, 50 R.I. 326, 330, 147 A. 621, 622 (1929); Grattage v. Superior Court, 42 R.I. 546, 548, 109 A. 86, 87 (1920); Wagner v. Wagner, 26 R.I. 27, 30, 57 A. 1058, 1059 (1904). The Family Court is a statutory tribunal whose jurisdiction is limited to that explicitly transferred to it from other courts. Rogers v. Rogers, 98 R.I. 263, 267-68, 201 A.2d 140, 143 (1964). Nothing in the legislation fixing the Family Court's jurisdiction, G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 8-10-3, as amended, or elsewhere in the statutes, grants that court coextensive authority with the Superior Court to entertain an action at law upon a judgment. Hence, the Superior Court was not trespassing upon the Family Court's jurisdiction in rejecting the defendant-husband's contention that an action at law to collect a child support order is cognizable only in the Family Court, and in granting the plaintiff-wife's motion for summary judgment for the unpaid installments which had accrued under that order.
The defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings.