Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jacquelin Glassie filed a claim against the estate of her father, Donelson Glassie, alleging he breached a property settlement agreement by failing to adequately fund a trust established for her benefit. The executor of Donelson's estate, Paul Doucette, disallowed the claim, leading to a lawsuit in the Superior Court. After Jacquelin's death, her sister Alison, as executrix of Jacquelin's estate, continued the lawsuit. The Superior Court initially granted summary judgment for the estate, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trustee of the trust, Wells Fargo, was the proper plaintiff. Wells Fargo then assigned its claims to Alison.A jury trial in the Superior Court resulted in a verdict for Alison, awarding her $1,164,138.43 in damages, which, with prejudgment interest, totaled $2,856,572.45. The jury also rejected the estate's counterclaim that Jacquelin had forfeited her interest under Donelson's will. The defendant, Doucette, filed a notice of appeal but failed to timely order the trial transcripts, leading Alison to move to dismiss the appeal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case after the Superior Court granted Alison's motion to dismiss the appeal due to Doucette's failure to timely order the transcripts and follow proper procedures for an extension. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that Doucette's reasons for the delay, including hopes for mediation and cost-saving, did not constitute excusable neglect. The Court noted the extensive litigation history and the trial justice's efforts to move the case forward, concluding that the deadlines were necessary and should be adhered to. View "Glassie v. Doucette" on Justia Law

The case involves the termination of parental rights of K.M. and E.R., Sr. to their four eldest children, J.R., E.R., A.R., and D.R. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) became involved after the fourth child tested positive for cocaine at birth in March 2016. All four children were removed from the home and never returned. The parents were referred to various programs and services, but they showed minimal progress and compliance, leading to the filing of termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions in August 2017. Despite some progress in later years, including reunification with their two youngest children through the Safe and Secure Baby Court (SSBC), the parents never progressed to unsupervised or overnight visits with the four eldest children.The Family Court terminated the parental rights of K.M. and E.R., Sr. after a trial that spanned several weeks and included testimony from multiple witnesses. The trial justice found that the parents were unfit, that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The parents appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in these findings and in admitting the guardian ad litem (GAL) report.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decrees. The Court found that the trial justice's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the parents' lack of compliance with service plans and the children's need for a permanent home. The Court also held that the admission of the GAL report, although hearsay, was harmless error given the overall evidence supporting the termination. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the children's best interests and the significant progress the parents had made, but ultimately upheld the termination of parental rights. View "In re J.R.; In re E.R.; In re A.R.; In re D.R" on Justia Law

In 1995, Michael Lambert was indicted for first-degree murder and later convicted of second-degree murder and committing a crime of violence while armed. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and an additional consecutive ten-year sentence for the crime of violence. His convictions were affirmed in 1997. After being denied parole multiple times, Lambert was granted parole in 2019, effective December 2020. However, in 2020, the Parole Board amended its decision, stating Lambert should have been paroled to his consecutive sentence, not the community.Lambert filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2021, claiming unlawful detention due to the Rhode Island Department of Corrections' (RIDOC) method of calculating parole eligibility. The petition was treated as an application for postconviction relief, and the Superior Court appointed counsel for Lambert. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted Lambert's motion, ordering his immediate release on parole to the community.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case. The Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision to aggregate Lambert's sentences for parole eligibility, referencing its recent decision in Neves v. State, which mandated aggregating sentences for parole purposes. However, the Court quashed the part of the Superior Court's judgment that ordered Lambert's immediate release to the community, stating that the Parole Board had only paroled him to his consecutive sentence, not the community. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Lambert v. Salisbury" on Justia Law

Matthew O. appealed the Family Court's decision to terminate his parental rights to his two sons, N.O. and K.O. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) initially became involved with the family due to the mother's drug use. N.O. was placed in foster care, and K.O., born later, was also placed in the same foster home due to his developmental disability. Matthew worked towards reunification but faced challenges, including his mental health issues and cognitive limitations.The Family Court initially denied DCYF's first petition to terminate Matthew's parental rights, finding that DCYF had not made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children. However, DCYF filed a second petition, and after a trial, the Family Court granted the petition, concluding that Matthew was unfit to parent due to his cognitive limitations and poor judgment, and that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to provide him with services aimed at reunification.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify Matthew with his children by providing tailored services and support. Despite these efforts, Matthew was unable to make sufficient progress in improving his parenting abilities. The Court also noted that Matthew's refusal to consistently engage in mental health treatment was a significant barrier to reunification. The Supreme Court concluded that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Matthew's parental rights, as they were thriving in their foster home and needed permanency. View "In re N.O." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jeanette Runey, filed a lawsuit against her neighbor, Wayne S. Faring, over a boundary dispute involving a shared driveway between their properties. The plaintiff owns property at 930 East Wallum Lake Road, while the defendant owns property at 860-900 East Wallum Lake Road. In 2019, the defendant initiated an action to determine ownership of the driveway, claiming easement by prescription, necessity, implication, and/or estoppel. The plaintiff counterclaimed for declaratory relief. In 2021, a Superior Court justice ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that she had title to the disputed land, and the defendant did not. Neither party appealed this decision.The plaintiff then sought a preliminary injunction to remove the defendant’s personal property from the disputed land. The defendant opposed, claiming adverse possession. A different Superior Court justice denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiff appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Superior Court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal after it had been docketed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the proper method to seek review of the denial of a preliminary injunction is through a petition for writ of certiorari, not a direct appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court denied and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.The Supreme Court also expressed concern over the motion justice’s disregard for the unappealed April 7, 2022 judgment, emphasizing the importance of res judicata, which bars the relitigation of issues that were or could have been tried in an earlier action. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with these principles. View "Runey v. Faring" on Justia Law

In 1990, Robert Raso pled nolo contendere to multiple criminal charges, including second-degree sexual assault, arson, and various robberies. He was sentenced to forty years, with twelve years to serve and twenty-eight years suspended with probation. After serving his time, Raso was released on probation. In 2011, a probation-violation report was filed against Raso, alleging he had sexually assaulted his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter, Natalie. During the probation-violation hearing, Natalie testified about the abuse, and despite a coerced recantation, the court found her original testimony credible. The court revoked Raso’s suspended sentence, ordering him to serve twenty-five years.Raso appealed the probation-violation determination, which was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Subsequently, Raso filed a motion to terminate his imprisonment under G.L. 1956 § 12-19-18(b)(5), arguing that the dismissal of the first-degree sexual assault charge indicated a lack of probable cause. The Superior Court denied this motion, finding no doubt about Raso’s culpability or probable cause.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the Superior Court’s decision. The court found that the state’s dismissal of the first-degree sexual assault charge was motivated by a desire to spare Natalie further trauma and satisfaction with the twenty-five-year sentence, not due to a lack of probable cause or doubt about Raso’s culpability. The court emphasized that Raso had received a full evidentiary hearing, and the findings of the trial justices were supported by the record. The order denying the motion to terminate imprisonment was affirmed. View "State v. Raso" on Justia Law

In the early morning of August 11, 2021, Officer Robert Savage of the Providence Police Department responded to a 911 call at a home on Canton Street, where he encountered gunfire from Luis Roman, who was heavily intoxicated and fired numerous shots from an AR-15 rifle at the officer's vehicle. The call was made by Roman's girlfriend, Stephanie Perez, after Roman physically assaulted her. Roman fled but was later arrested at his mother's house. He was indicted on ten charges, including assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a crime of violence.Roman pled guilty to eight of the ten charges, acknowledging his status as a habitual offender and probation violator. The Superior Court sentenced him to seventy years, with thirty years to serve, including ten nonparolable years. Roman filed a motion to reduce his sentence under Rule 35, arguing that the sentencing justice did not adequately consider his diminished capacity and other mitigating factors. The motion was denied, with the court noting Roman's waiver of his right to file such a motion due to his guilty plea and finding the sentence appropriate given the circumstances.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order. The court held that the sentencing justice acted within his discretion, considering Roman's violent criminal history and the severity of his actions. The court found no due process violation in the sentencing justice's consideration of Roman's alleged statement about preferring a shootout with police over returning to prison. The sentence was deemed justified and not grossly disparate from other sentences for similar offenses. View "State v. Roman" on Justia Law

A reporter for The Providence Journal submitted an Access to Public Records Act (APRA) request to the Office of Governor Daniel J. McKee, seeking a list of individuals who received preferred license plates. The Governor’s Office denied the request, citing the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and state law, which protect such information from disclosure. The Providence Journal argued that the DPPA did not apply because the records were maintained by the Governor’s Office, not the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).The Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General upheld the Governor’s Office’s denial, stating that the Governor’s Office effectively acts as an agent of the DMV in this context. LMG Rhode Island Holdings, Inc., the publisher of The Providence Journal, then filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Superior Court, arguing that the denial violated APRA. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the Attorney General that the DPPA applied to the Governor’s Office in this context and that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under APRA.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that the DPPA applies to the Governor’s Office when it processes preferred plate applications, as it acts as an agent of the DMV. The Court also concluded that the information requested was protected by the DPPA, as it pertains to motor vehicle registration records. Consequently, the denial of the APRA request was lawful.Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of the Governor’s Office’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The Court found that the plaintiff’s case had some grounding in existing law and was not frivolous, thus not warranting an award of attorneys’ fees. View "LMG Rhode Island Holdings, Inc. v. Office of Governor McKee" on Justia Law

Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. (Cashman) was contracted by Cardi Corporation, Inc. (Cardi) to construct marine cofferdams for the Sakonnet River Bridge project. Cashman then subcontracted Specialty Diving Services, Inc. (SDS) to perform underwater aspects of the cofferdam installation. Cardi identified deficiencies in the cofferdams and sought to hold Cashman responsible. Cashman believed it had fulfilled its contractual obligations and sued Cardi for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Cardi counterclaimed, alleging deficiencies in Cashman's construction. Cashman later added SDS as a defendant, claiming breach of contract and seeking indemnity and contribution.The Superior Court denied SDS's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact. The case proceeded to a jury-waived trial, after which SDS moved for judgment as a matter of law. The trial justice granted SDS's motion, finding Cashman failed to establish that SDS breached any obligations. SDS then moved for attorneys' fees, which the trial justice granted, finding Cashman's claims were unsupported by evidence and lacked justiciable issues of fact or law. The trial justice ordered mediation over attorneys' fees, resulting in a stipulated amount of $224,671.14, excluding prejudgment interest.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's amended judgment. The Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law, as Cashman failed to provide specific evidence of justiciable issues of fact. The Court also upheld the award of attorneys' fees, finding no abuse of discretion. Additionally, the Court determined that the attorneys' fees were not barred by the Bankruptcy Code, as they arose post-confirmation and were not contingent claims. View "Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, Inc." on Justia Law

Marilyn Wilson and Milton Wilson were married in 1980, and Milton was employed as a police officer. They divorced in 1998, and their property settlement agreement stated that Marilyn would be the irrevocable beneficiary of Milton's survivor pension benefits. Milton later married Diane Wilson in 2007 and passed away in 2020. After his death, Marilyn sought survivor benefits from the City of Providence, which were being paid to Diane.The Family Court declined to rule on Marilyn's motion to compel the city to pay her the benefits, leading her to file a suit in the Superior Court. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Diane, ruling that she was the surviving spouse entitled to the benefits under Rhode Island General Laws § 45-21.3-1 and the Providence Code § 17-189(m)(6).The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the terms "surviving spouse" and "dependent spouse" in the statute and ordinance refer to the person lawfully married to the retiree at the time of death. The Court found that the property settlement agreement between Marilyn and Milton, which was incorporated but not merged into the final divorce judgment, could not override the statutory provisions. Therefore, Diane, as Milton's spouse at the time of his death, was entitled to the survivor benefits. View "Wilson v. The City of Providence" on Justia Law