Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-9-28 (2026)

Order as to parties in default

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

After the fixed return day, to be at least twenty (20) days after the time of the actual issuance of notice, the court, if satisfied that the notice has been properly given, on motion of the petitioner shall enter an order defaulting all persons failing to file a timely answer, and decreeing that the petition as to them be taken as confessed (Form 8).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2021 · leading case: Pollard v. Acer Grp., 870 A.2d 429 (R.I. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pollard v. Acer Grp., 870 A.2d 429 (R.I. 2005). · cites it 3× “Section 44-9-28 provides: "After the return day fixed, to be at least twenty (20) days after the time of the actual issuance of notice, the court shall, if satisfied that the notice has been properly given, on motion of the petitioner enter an order defaulting all persons…”

Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Verissimo DePina, 63 A.3d 871 (R.I. 2013). · cites it 2× “Section 44-9-28 requires that the return day be at least twenty days after the "actual issuance of notice” to interested parties.”

Jeanne E. Johnson v. QBAR Assocs., 78 A.3d 48 (R.I. 2013). “*54 Turning to plaintiffs next argument, that a final decree could not have entered without a default having first entered against her, § 44-9-30 clearly states that “If a default is entered under § 44-9-28, or if redemption is not made within the time and upon the terms fixed…”

Patrick Conley, Esquire v. Crown Realty, LLC, Brenco Realty, LLC, Town of North Providence (R.I. 2020). · cites it 4× “) 6 It is also noteworthy that, while the justice of the Superior Court clothed her ruling in terms of the Fontaine case, § 44-9-28, which was not directly discussed in Fontaine, is the provision entitling a petitioner to a decree pro confesso.”

E.T. Investments, LLC v. Thomas C. Riley (R.I. 2021). · cites it 4× “”5 Section 44-9-30; see § 44-9-28; Crown Realty, LLC, 223 A.3d at 772 (concluding that entry of a final decree forever barring rights to redemption was proper because the property owner was in default, having failed to timely answer or provide an adequate justification for…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.