Opinion
March 22, 1976.
PRESENT: Paolino, Acting C.J., Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.
COURTS. Appellate Review. Lack of Essential Record. Remand for Further Proceedings. Where the decree contained only conclusionary statements with no reference to facts on which they are based, nor did the trial justice's decision contain any express findings of fact on one of the essential issues, namely, the respondent's capacity to pay increased needs of the children, Supreme Court could not conduct a meaningful review.
APPEAL by respondents from a decree of Family Court entered by Healey, J., heard and remanded to Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with opinion.
Feiner, Winsten Greenwald, Martin L. Greenwald, for petitioner.
Kirshenbaum Kirshenbaum, Alfred Factor, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the respondent from a decree entered in the Family Court modifying the terms of a final decree of divorce with respect to support payments for two minor children of the parties. The respondent contends that the trial justice misconceived and overlooked material evidence in reaching his ultimate conclusion regarding the children's increased needs and the respondent's ability to pay.
The record in this case is such that we are unable to perform our duty in passing on the respondent's claim of error and in reviewing the decree appealed from. This is so because the decree contains only conclusionary statements with no reference to the facts on which they are based. Indeed, neither the decree nor the trial justice's decision contain any express findings of fact on one of the essential issues in this appeal, namely, the respondent's capacity to pay the increased needs of the children.
Because the record here is in some disarray and is such that we are unable, in the absence of express findings of fact, to conduct a meaningful review of the decree appealed from, we remand the case to the Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.