Opinion ID: 1563434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Discretion

Text: We previously have stated that a lower court has no power or authority to deviate from the mandate issued by an appellate court. RICO Corp. v. Town of Exeter, 836 A.2d 212, 218 (R.I.2003) (quoting State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 952 P.2d 1326, 1331 (1998)). The mandate rule provides that a lower court on remand must implement both the letter and spirit of the [appellate court's] mandate, and may not disregard the explicit directives of that court. Id. (quoting Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir.2002)). In our judgment, the trial justice adhered to the mandate that we issued in Hagopian I. Although she reaffirmed her original decision, she clearly demonstrated that her ruling was based on the totality of the circumstances presented by the evidence. The trial justice observed the demeanor of the parties from the bench and detected such a high level of hostility as to convince her that a grave injustice could occur if Jan unilaterally controlled the distribution date of his pension, which she characterized as a hotly contested issue. The plaintiff's contention that the trial justice merely clarified her original decision is therefore without merit. We also note that we did not instruct the trial justice to conduct further proceedings or consider additional evidence, nor are we persuaded that such actions were necessary. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the trial justice exercised her discretion in accordance with our mandate.