Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was two properties consisting of neighboring condominiums. In 2005, Defendants placed barriers in Plaintiffs' claimed right of way, which impeded vehicle access and foot traffic. After Defendants refused to remove the barrier, Plaintiffs sued Defendants, alleging that, according to a condominium declaration, Plaintiffs had an express easement over the right of way, or, in the alternative, they had an implied or prescriptive easement over the right of way. After a trial, the trial justice ruled in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the judgment of the superior court with respect to its determination that Defendants did not have a claim of an implied easement by reservation over the right of way, as the trial justice did not make any findings or legal conclusions with respect to whether Plaintiffs had an implied easement by grant over the claimed right of way; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. Remanded. View "Wellington Condo. Ass'n v. Wellington Cove Condo. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a condominium unit owner in a condominium community comprised of three sub-condominium residential areas. Plaintiff filed an application for approval to demolish his existing unit and rebuild a larger unit. After America Condominium Association asserted that Plaintiff did not own the land on which he sought to expand, Plaintiff filed a complaint against America seeking a declaratory judgment that he had sufficient interest to file an application regarding the expansion of his unit onto adjoining land. Plaintiff then brought an action against the larger condominium association and the other sub-condominium associations in the community, essentially parroting the allegations set forth in the America action. In both actions, the hearing justice concluded that Plaintiff had standing to file his application for the expansion of his unit but that Plaintiff's proposed expansion required the unanimous consent of the other 153 unit owners. The Supreme Court primarily affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff had standing to file the application for expansion; but (2) pursuant to the Condominium Act, the unanimous consent of all of the unit owners must be obtained before Plaintiff could carry out his unit expansion. View "Sisto v. Am. Condo. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition to foreclose the right of redemption arising from a tax sale of certain property. The petition indicated that Respondents, including Perfecto Iron Works, held an interest in the property and that Respondents were provided notice of the petition. Neither Petitioner nor her attorney received a copy of Perfecto's answer, and thus, believing no responsive pleading had been filed, Petitioner filed a motion for entry of default. After a hearing, a final decree was entered vesting legal and equitable title to the property in Petitioner. Perfecto subsequently filed a motion to vacate the default and final decree. A trial justice granted the motion, concluding that the default was erroneously entered because Perfecto's answer was timely filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice properly vacated the default decree when, in fact, Perfecto had answered the petition and had done so in a timely manner. View "Rafaelian v. Perfecto Iron Works, Inc." on Justia Law

RICS executed a note secured by a mortgage on real estate. Meanwhile, TLA entered into a contract with RICS to provide architectural and engineering services for the project and recorded two documents related to its work on the project. Subsequently, TLA filed a petition to enforce its mechanics' lien. No claimant timely entered an appearance in TLA's mechanics' lien litigation to preserve the priority of their claims. Months later, Petra purchased the note and mortgage, which had not been recorded by the previous owner. Meanwhile, the superior court entered a consent order signed by RICS and TLS in the mechanics' lien litigation. RICS subsequently conveyed the property, and the court placed the property into receivership. Petra later filed a motion to file an answer and statement of claim out of time in the mechanics' lien proceedings. The court granted the motion, thereby restoring the mortgage's priority over TLA's mechanics' lien. The property was sold to Petra through a receivership action. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court's grant of Petra's motion, thereby restoring the priority of TLA's mechanics' lien, holding that the motion justice erred in determining that Petra's failure to file a timely statement of claim was the result of "excusable neglect." View "R.I. Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Harris Mill, LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the interpretation of a clause concerning the allocation of real estate taxes contained in a written lease between Inland American Retail Management and Cinemaworld of Florida. Inland and Cinemaworld were successors-in-interest to a ground lease for the rental of what is now a movie theater in a shopping center. Under the terms of the lease, Cinemaworld incurred certain liabilities and expenses. Pursuant to a clause in the lease, Cinemaworld was required to pay an amount equal to the real estate taxes "levied, assessed, or otherwise imposed" against the movie theater. Inland filed a complaint for breach of the lease for Cinemaworld's alleged failure to make timely payments as required by the lease. The superior court granted partial summary judgment in Cinemaworld's favor with respect to its motion seeking an accounting, ruling that the formula allocating Cinemaworld's reasonable share of real estate taxes should be based on the square footage of its leased premises. Inland appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation of the parties' lease. View "Inland Am. Retail Mgmt. LLC v. Cinemaworld of Fla., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a purchase and sales agreement agreeing to buy Defendant's property and deposited ten percent of the purchase price with Defendant's real estate agent until closing. Defendant signed the agreement but also made certain handwritten alterations to the contract. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that Defendant's handwritten alterations were material changes that constituted a counter-offer, not an acceptance of Plaintiffs' offer to purchase the property. The jury found there was never a valid contract between the parties and Plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their deposit. The trial court added prejudgment interest to the judgment. Defendant filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs were not entitled to interest on their deposit. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the award of prejudgment interest in this case, holding that Plaintiffs' deposit did not fall within the category of "pecuniary damages" under R.I. Gen. Laws 9-21-10(a), and therefore, Plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest. View "Andrews v. Plouff" on Justia Law

The underlying litigation arose from a real estate dispute between Plaintiff and several neighbors of Plaintiff (collectively, Codefendants). Codefendants retained attorneys (Attorney Defendants) to represent them in the property dispute. Attorney Defendants filed a notice of intent on behalf of Codefendants asserting Codefendants' right to their own property. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and later amended his complaint setting forth claims against Attorney Defendants for slander and title and intentional interference with prospective advantage. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Attorney Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to establish an essential element of his claim of slander of title; and (2) the notice of intent could not be said to constitute an improper act of interference, and therefore, Attorney Defendants were entitled to summary judgment with respect to the intentional interference claim. View "Beauregard v. Gouin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought permits from the City of Providence so they might restore electrical meters at the property they owned. The property was located in an area of the City that was zoned for no more than two-family dwelling units. The City conducted an inspection of the property, which revealed the property was being used as a three-family dwelling, and therefore, it was not in compliance with zoning ordinances. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the City official's determination that their property was an illegal three-family dwelling. The zoning board affirmed. Plaintiffs appealed and sought a declaration that their use of the property was a legal nonconforming use. The trial justice denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not abuse his discretion in declining to declare that Plaintiffs' property was a legal nonconforming use; (2) did not err in declining to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the City; and (3) did not err in declining to allow Plaintiffs to rely upon the doctrine of laches as a basis for ruling that the City should not be permitted to enforce the provision of the zoning ordinance that prohibits using the property in a three-family manner. View "Cigarrilha v. City of Providence" on Justia Law

After she slipped and fell on an icy surface, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence by Defendant in failing property to maintain its property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, finding, among other things, that Defendant, a commercial lessor, did not have a duty of care to Plaintiff, an invitee of a tenant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in finding that Defendant owed no duty of care to Plaintiff; and (2) Plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred in denying her request for a continuance to conduct further discovery was waived, and even if the issue not been waived, the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in declining to grant a continuance. View "Berard v. HCP, Inc." on Justia Law

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for two lenders (collectively, Plaintiffs), held mortgages on Lot 456. For the property owner's failure to pay his water bill, the Pawtucket Water Supply Board (PWSB) auctioned the lot. PWSB issued a deed conveying the title in the property to Amy Realty. Amy Realty subsequently discovered that the property PWSB had intended to auction had been mistakenly listed as Lot 486 on the tax sale notices and deed. Amy Realty then obtained a corrective deed from the PWSB conveying title to Lot 456. Amy Realty subsequently filed a petition to foreclose on Plaintiffs' rights of redemption in Lot 456. Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to vacate the final decree of disclosure, alleging that the corrective deed changing the lot number from 486 to 456 was invalid and this infirmity rendered the foreclosure decree void. The superior court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the corrective deed obtained in this case was null and void because it was not recorded within sixty days of the tax sale; and (2) the final foreclosure decree may be vacated because the tax sale was invalid. View "Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. DePina" on Justia Law