Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Sharon and Kieran Cunningham were married in 1994 and divorced in 2021. They entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that was incorporated but not merged into the final divorce decree. The MSA included provisions about the use and sale of their home in Middletown, Rhode Island, which were modified twice by mutual agreement. In January 2024, Kieran's counsel offered to purchase the home, leading to a dispute over whether the Family Court could modify the MSA to allow an appraisal of the property.Kieran filed a motion in the Family Court to have the home appraised, which Sharon opposed, arguing that the MSA did not provide for such an appraisal. Kieran amended his motion to request an inspection and appraisal, citing Rule 34 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure. The Family Court held a hearing and ultimately ruled that Kieran had no right to purchase the property under the MSA and sanctioned him for filing an improper motion, awarding Sharon $6,125 in attorneys' fees.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The Court held that Kieran's motion was not well-grounded in fact or law and that he sought relief not permitted by the MSA. The Court found that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees, as the fees were reasonable and supported by an affidavit from a Rhode Island Bar member. The Supreme Court concluded that the sanctions and attorneys' fees were appropriate given the circumstances. View "Cunningham v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

The defendant and the victim were involved in a fatal shooting that occurred outside the home of the defendant’s former partner, with whom he shared a child. After the end of their romantic relationship, the former partner began seeing the victim. On the night in question, the victim arrived at the former partner’s house, and after an encounter between the defendant and his former partner, the defendant fired multiple gunshots into the victim’s car, resulting in the victim’s death. The defendant was subsequently indicted on multiple charges, including murder and several related offenses. Additional charges were brought based on the defendant’s conduct while incarcerated awaiting trial. The two cases were consolidated and tried together.In the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant was tried before a jury. The trial justice included an instruction on voluntary manslaughter over the state’s objection, but instructed the jury to consider voluntary manslaughter only if it found the state had not proven first- or second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant objected, arguing that the jury should be allowed to consider whether adequate provocation negated malice even if the elements of murder were otherwise satisfied, and that the state should be required to disprove provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and several other charges, and not guilty on others. The defendant was sentenced accordingly and appealed.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. The court held that the trial justice’s instructions were proper, finding that the instructions, when viewed in their entirety, adequately explained the law and did not mislead the jury. The court concluded that the state’s burden of proof was not improperly shifted to the defendant and that the instructions did not violate due process. The judgments of conviction were affirmed. View "State v. Mangru" on Justia Law

E.H. Turf Supply Company, Inc. filed a small-claims action against Roger Tavares, alleging that Tavares stopped payment on a check for services performed on his tractor. Tavares denied the allegations and counterclaimed for $2,500, asserting that the services were not rendered. The District Court ruled in favor of E.H. Turf Supply, awarding $1,500 plus costs. Tavares appealed to the Superior Court, arguing procedural errors and bias.The Superior Court held a de novo bench trial. E.H. Turf Supply presented testimony from its president, Erik Hagenstein, who detailed the company's repair process and confirmed that Tavares had approved and paid for the services before stopping payment. Tavares cross-examined Hagenstein and attempted to introduce invoices from other repair shops to show that the repairs were not properly done. The trial justice excluded these invoices as hearsay but allowed Tavares to testify about his experience.The Superior Court found in favor of E.H. Turf Supply, awarding $1,703.71. Tavares appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, arguing that the Superior Court erred in allowing E.H. Turf Supply to present its case first, excluding his evidence, and not considering his status as a self-represented litigant.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no merit in Tavares's arguments. The Court held that E.H. Turf Supply, as the plaintiff, was correctly allowed to present its case first. The exclusion of the invoices was proper as they were hearsay, and the trial justice provided Tavares with ample opportunity to present his case. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "E.H. Turf Supply Co. v. Tavares" on Justia Law

The defendant, Olayinka Alege, was charged with one count of simple assault and/or battery following an incident at the Edge Fitness club in Warwick, Rhode Island, where he allegedly removed a complaining witness's sock and shoe and massaged his foot without consent. The Warwick Police Department filed a criminal complaint on May 10, 2021, and the defendant was found guilty in the Third Division District Court on April 8, 2022. The case was then transferred to the Superior Court, where a mistrial was declared due to a hung jury. A new trial was scheduled, and the defendant's counsel withdrew, leading to the defendant representing himself.In the Superior Court, the defendant's motion for a Franks hearing was denied. The trial justice found that the statement in the affidavit, which indicated that surveillance video supported the complaining witness's version of events, was not materially false and that the complaining witness's statement alone supported probable cause. The trial justice also granted the state's motion in limine to admit testimony from Alexander Harrington under Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, finding it relevant to show intent or plan.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the Franks hearing, as the affidavit contained sufficient content to support probable cause. The Court also upheld the admission of Harrington's testimony, agreeing that it was relevant to show intent or plan and that the trial justice provided appropriate limiting instructions to the jury. The Court found no error in the trial justice's denial of the defendant's motion to recuse, noting that the trial justice's actions demonstrated no personal bias or prejudice. Finally, the Court declined to consider the defendant's argument regarding sentencing, as he had not filed a Rule 35 motion and presented no extraordinary circumstances. View "State v. Alege" on Justia Law

Lieutenant Staci K. Shepherd, a Rhode Island State Police officer with a commendable 22-year career, suffered a heart attack during a firearms requalification program on May 2, 2017, which left her permanently disabled. She applied for a disability pension under Rhode Island law and the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the State of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Troopers Association. Superintendent Colonel James M. Manni denied her application, concluding that she failed to prove her heart attack was causally related to her employment. Shepherd then filed a declaratory-judgment complaint.The Superior Court found Superintendent Manni's decision arbitrary and capricious, declaring Shepherd entitled to a disability pension. The court criticized the superintendent's requirement for causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and his failure to consider the CBA's heart-attack presumption provision. The court granted Shepherd's motion for partial summary judgment, leading to the defendant's appeal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court noted that the superintendent applied an incorrect causation standard, requiring proof that the heart attack was caused by employment, rather than whether employment conditions contributed to the injury. The court emphasized that under the correct standard, it is sufficient if employment conditions contributed to the injury. Given the undisputed facts, including the stress and physical demands of Shepherd's job, the court concluded that her employment contributed to her heart attack. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, declaring Shepherd entitled to a disability pension. View "Shepherd v. Rhode Island State Police" on Justia Law