Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendants executed a promissory note in 2006 for a $28,000 loan from Sovereign Bank, secured by a second mortgage on their property in Smithfield, Rhode Island. The mortgage named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as mortgagee, acting as nominee for the lender and its successors. After a series of assignments, the mortgage was ultimately assigned to the plaintiff. It is undisputed that the original promissory note was lost and that the plaintiff never possessed it. The plaintiff filed a complaint in Providence County Superior Court seeking to foreclose on the property after the defendants defaulted on the loan.The defendants responded by arguing that, under Rhode Island law and relevant precedent, only the party that lost the promissory note could enforce it, and that the plaintiff’s lack of possession of the note precluded foreclosure. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asserting that as the assigned mortgagee, it was entitled to foreclose despite not possessing the note. The Superior Court, referencing prior Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions, found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the default and concluded that the mortgagee need not hold the note to foreclose. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims, and authorized foreclosure, subject to further court order.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s order. The Court held that under Rhode Island law, a mortgagee with the power of sale may foreclose on a property even if it does not possess the promissory note, so long as it is the properly assigned mortgagee. The Court rejected the defendants’ arguments based on statutory provisions regarding lost notes, reaffirming that possession of the note is not required for foreclosure by the mortgagee. View "Porch Swing Holdings LLC v. Mallory" on Justia Law

In March 2022, police officers in Providence responded to concerns about Sherbert Maddox, who had not been heard from in several days. Her uncle, Marvin Maddox, reported to officers that he had been told Sherbert was killed and her body was in a refrigerator in her boyfriend’s apartment. Officers went to the apartment complex, spoke with residents, and focused on Apartment 6, where Sherbert’s boyfriend, later identified as the defendant, lived. After repeated knocking and observing someone inside who did not answer the door, officers forcibly entered the apartment without a warrant. Inside, they found the defendant, two firearms, and Sherbert Maddox’s body in a refrigerator.A grand jury indicted the defendant on nine counts, including murder and firearm offenses. Before trial in the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless entry, arguing it violated his constitutional rights. After a hearing, the trial justice denied the motion, finding exigent circumstances justified the entry. At trial, several counts were dismissed, and the jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and related firearm charges. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional concurrent sentences. The defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case, applying a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and conducting an independent review of the constitutional issues. The Court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and search, given the urgent need to check on Sherbert Maddox’s well-being and the information available to police at the time. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, upholding the convictions and the denial of the suppression motion. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A father was charged with multiple counts of child molestation sexual assault involving his biological daughter, Anne, who was between the ages of three and eight during the alleged incidents. The charges included two counts of first-degree child molestation (fellatio) and two counts of second-degree child molestation (penis to vagina). The alleged acts occurred in the family home in Rhode Island, and Anne testified to both charged and uncharged incidents of sexual misconduct by the defendant, including acts that took place during family trips outside Rhode Island. Anne disclosed the abuse to her stepsister, Christine, and later to other family members, which led to a report to child protective services and a subsequent investigation.The case was tried before a jury in the Rhode Island Superior Court. The jury found the defendant guilty on one count of first-degree child molestation sexual assault (fellatio in the bathroom) and acquitted him on the remaining three counts. The trial justice admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior uncharged sexual misconduct with Anne and with Anne’s mother, Elaine, under Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, finding the acts sufficiently similar and nonremote to the charged conduct. The court also admitted prior consistent statements made by Anne to family members, allowed travel records into evidence, and excused a prospective juror for cause due to COVID-19 concerns.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed five issues raised by the defendant. The Court held that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence, finding it relevant, necessary, and not unfairly prejudicial. The Court also found no error in the admission of prior consistent statements, the travel records, or the excusal of the juror. The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case to the Superior Court. View "State v. Montero" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon, drive-by shooting, and conspiracy to commit a drive-by shooting. The incident occurred on September 12, 2020, when the defendant and a group of friends encountered another group, leading to a shooting that injured three individuals. The defendant was identified as the driver of the vehicle from which the shots were fired. The police investigation led to the arrest of the defendant and the recovery of the firearm used in the shooting.In the Superior Court, the defendant was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms for the assault and conspiracy charges, with additional sentences for the drive-by shooting and conspiracy to commit a drive-by shooting. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in several ways, including not admitting a witness's juvenile record, improperly admitting hearsay evidence, denying his motion for a new trial, and denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decisions. The court found that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in excluding the juvenile record, as the defendant did not sufficiently alert the trial justice to the specific rule of evidence he was relying on. The court also determined that the hearsay statement about a "blinky" was properly admitted to show its effect on the listener, not for the truth of the matter asserted.The court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, concluding that the trial justice had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, made credibility determinations, and found the testimonies of key witnesses credible. The court also upheld the denial of the motion for a judgment of acquittal, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court. View "State v. Peckham" on Justia Law

Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC (RITC) filed a protest against Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) for allegedly violating Rhode Island General Laws § 31-5.1-4.2(a). DTNA had granted a franchise to Advantage Truck Raynham, LLC (ATG Raynham) in Raynham, Massachusetts, which RITC claimed was within its "relevant market area" as defined in their franchise agreement. RITC argued that DTNA failed to provide the required statutory notice before establishing the new dealership.The Dealers' Hearing Board determined it lacked jurisdiction over RITC's protest, citing the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. RITC then filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court, which DTNA removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The District Court concluded that the Dealer Law could not be applied extraterritorially without violating the Commerce Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine whether a "relevant market area" under § 31-5.1-4.2(a) could extend beyond Rhode Island's borders.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the certified question de novo and concluded that the statute's plain language and legislative intent allowed a "relevant market area" to extend beyond state borders. The Court noted that the statute's definition of "relevant market area" includes a 20-mile radius or the area defined in the franchise agreement, whichever is greater, without limiting it to within Rhode Island. The Court emphasized that the legislature's intent was to provide dealers with a protective area that could extend beyond state lines, especially given Rhode Island's small geographic size. Thus, the Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, allowing the "relevant market area" to extend beyond Rhode Island's borders. View "Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2011, Deutsche Bank filed a breach-of-contract action against Walter M. Potenza and Carmela Natale, alleging default on a promissory note and loan modification agreement. Deutsche Bank obtained a judgment for $1,662,837.12 in 2017. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed an independent action in equity, claiming Deutsche Bank committed fraud on the court by falsely asserting it was the holder of the note, despite knowing the note had not been properly endorsed.The Superior Court granted Deutsche Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding no credible evidence of fraud and determining that the plaintiffs' failure to obtain the deposition earlier was due to their attorneys' negligence. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not establish all the elements required for relief under Rule 60(b). Specifically, the plaintiffs admitted Deutsche Bank was the holder of the note in their 2011 answer and did not present evidence or seek a continuance during the 2017 summary judgment hearing. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to challenge the validity of the note or the knowledge of Deutsche Bank's affiant precluded them from obtaining relief. The judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court. View "Potenza v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company" on Justia Law

Capital Video Corporation (CVC) obtained a judgment against Joseph A. Bevilacqua in 2002 for $178,000 plus interest. CVC requested and received an original execution in December 2002, which lapsed. In 2004, CVC obtained an alias execution, recorded it against property jointly owned by Bevilacqua and his wife, Donna Bevilacqua. In 2005, CVC obtained another alias execution, recorded it against another jointly owned property, and later partially discharged it. In 2020, CVC requested a replacement execution, which was issued and recorded against a property in North Providence. This property was later transferred to Donna Bevilacqua and then to her trust. In 2022, CVC obtained another pluries execution and scheduled a constable’s sale of the property. Donna Bevilacqua intervened, seeking to prevent the sale.The Superior Court invalidated the 2020 and 2022 pluries executions, finding that they were not issued within the six-year limitation period set by § 9-25-3. The court determined that the 2020 execution was not issued within six years of the 2005 alias execution and that the 2022 execution was invalid because it assumed the validity of the 2020 execution.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The Court held that the 2020 and 2022 pluries executions were invalid because they were not issued within the six-year period required by § 9-25-3. Additionally, CVC failed to properly apply for a replacement execution and did not provide proof that the 2005 alias execution was lost or destroyed. The Court concluded that the trial justice did not err in ordering the release and discharge of the 2020 and 2022 pluries executions. View "Capital Video Corp. v. Bevilacqua" on Justia Law

Zoey Watch Hill, LLC applied for a dimensional variance to expand a nonconforming structure on its property in Westerly, Rhode Island. The property, a small, irregularly shaped lot with a house built in 1938, did not meet current zoning requirements. Zoey proposed lifting the house to create additional living space and sought variances for all setbacks. The Westerly Zoning Board of Review approved the application, finding that the unique characteristics of the lot and the inadequacy of the existing house created a hardship justifying the variance.The Watch Hill Fire District (WHFD) appealed the board's decision to the Superior Court, arguing that Zoey failed to demonstrate that there was no other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally permitted beneficial use of the property. The Superior Court affirmed the board's decision, concluding that the board applied the correct standard of "more than a mere inconvenience" and that substantial evidence supported the board's findings. The court also found that the proposed project was the least relief necessary and that Zoey's hardship was not self-created or primarily for financial gain.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case on a writ of certiorari. The Court held that the Superior Court and the zoning board applied the correct standard for granting a dimensional variance. The Court clarified that the "more than a mere inconvenience" standard was appropriate and that the "no other reasonable alternative" language from a definitional statute did not alter this standard. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, upholding the zoning board's decision to grant the dimensional variance to Zoey. View "Watch Hill Fire District v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review" on Justia Law

The Nordstroms applied for a dimensional variance to the Westerly Zoning Board of Review to demolish their existing house and build a new three-story house on their property, which is a preexisting nonconforming lot. The property did not meet the minimum lot size and frontage requirements of the Medium-Density Residential 30 (MDR-30) district. The board approved the application, granting variances for side yard setbacks, despite objections from neighboring landowners.The Superior Court consolidated appeals from RH McLeod Family LLC and 4 Spray Rock, LLC, who argued that the board did not follow the correct legal standard and violated the zoning ordinance. The trial justice affirmed the board's decision, concluding that the board applied the correct legal standard and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The trial justice also determined that the zoning ordinance allowed the Nordstroms to obtain a dimensional variance to build a new nonconforming structure after demolishing the existing one.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the trial justice's interpretation of the zoning ordinance. The Court held that the plain language of § 260-32(C)(2) of the Westerly Zoning Ordinance prohibits the rebuilding or replacement of a demolished nonconforming structure unless it conforms to the dimensional requirements of the ordinance. The Court concluded that the ordinance does not allow for the possibility of obtaining a dimensional variance in such cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "RH McLeod Family LLC v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review" on Justia Law

A man was indicted for first-degree sexual assault based on an incident that occurred in July 1999, in which the complaining witness testified that the defendant, whom she had known for less than two weeks and considered only a platonic friend, visited her home unannounced and forcibly raped her. The witness described her resistance and the emotional and psychological trauma she suffered afterward. DNA evidence collected at the time of the incident was later matched to the defendant. The prosecution also presented testimony from medical and forensic experts, as well as corroborating testimony from the witness’s friend, who received a distressed call from her shortly after the event.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Providence County Superior Court in 2022, nearly twenty-three years after the alleged assault. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the trial justice denied his motion for a new trial. The defendant was sentenced to thirty-five years, with twelve years to serve and the remainder suspended with probation. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of consent, by not giving a spoliation instruction regarding missing physical evidence (the jeans the witness wore), and by issuing an Allen charge to the deadlocked jury rather than declaring a mistrial.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that the trial justice’s instructions on force and coercion were adequate and that a separate consent instruction was unnecessary because there was no evidence of consent. The Court also found no error in refusing a spoliation instruction, as there was no evidence of bad faith or exculpatory value in the missing jeans. Finally, the Court concluded that the Allen charge given to the jury was fair, neutral, and not coercive under the circumstances. View "State v. Threadgill" on Justia Law