Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In Nye I, before final judgment entered awarding a judgment parcel to Plaintiff, Defendants transferred via quitclaim deed to their family trust a property that the judgment parcel was located within. In Nye II, the Court affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the transfer of the disputed property. In this case, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the transfer of the disputed property to the trust before final judgment entered in Nye I served to render the final judgment a nullity. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s negligence and fraud claims and dismissed Plaintiff’s quiet title claim on the basis that Plaintiff was ordered to, and failed to, comply with R.I. Gen. Laws 34-16-2 by submitting an abstract of title or similar report concerning the status of the title. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court justice was correct in granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s fraud and negligence claims and in dismissing Plaintiff’s quiet title claim. View "Nye v. Brousseau" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was seriously injured in a collision while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle owned by the insureds of Defendant. Defendant obtained a judgment for money damages but subsequently settled with the insureds in exchange for an assignment of claims the insureds had against Defendant. Plaintiff then filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment requiring Defendant to pay the entire judgment from the underlying tort action (count one) and a declaration that Defendant was liable for prejudgment interest on the judgment in the underlying tort action (count two). A superior court justice granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on counts one and two. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in count one and remanded for a new trial and affirmed the judgment in count two. On remand, Plaintiff sought a calculation of prejudgment interest. The superior court granted the motion, determining that Defendant’s argument with respect to the judgment satisfied order had been waived in regards to count two. The court subsequently ordered Defendant to make payment to Plaintiff. Defendant appealed from that order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant waived its arguments with respect to the judgment satisfied order and that the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute throughout the litigation. View "DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2002, Applicant was convicted for the second-degree murder of his infant daughter. In 2007, Applicant filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging that newly discovered evidence required a new trial. At a hearing before a justice of the superior court, Applicant presented the testimony of Dr. Richard T. Callery, who, while he was employed with Rhode Island’s Office of State Medical Examiners, had reviewed the victim’s file. The hearing justice denied the application for postconviction relief, concluding that the newly discovered evidence was not material and would not change the verdict at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the testimony of Dr. Callery did not warrant postconviction relief. View "D’Alessio v. State" on Justia Law

In January 2006, Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree robbery and presented as a probation violator. In April 2006, Defendant was adjudicated a probation violator and began serving his previously suspended sentences for drug-related charges. Defendant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced in April 2009. Three years later, Defendant filed a motion for credit for time served, arguing that his sentence in the robbery case should have been reduced by the number of days that he spent incarcerated between his arrest and his sentencing. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the order of the superior court, holding that, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 12-19-2, Defendant was entitled to a credit for the time he spent incarcerated between January 2006 and April 2006. View "State v. Wray" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal concerned Defendant’s third attempt to challenge his plea and sentence with a motion to reduce or correct sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial justice denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that his life sentence was illegal because he should have been convicted of manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of thirty years, and that the continued imposition of his purportedly illegal sentence constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment to both the federal and the state Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the hearing justice’s decision to deny the Rule 35 motion and that Defendant’s constitutional arguments had no merit. View "State v. Miguel" on Justia Law

Simcha Berman fell and was severely injured while descending a path that abuts the paved portion of The Cliff Walk, a major Newport tourist attraction that runs along Newport’s shoreline. Berman and his then-wife (together, Plaintiffs) sued the State and other defendants not related to this appeal. The jury found that the State was not negligent in inspecting, maintaining, and repairing the location where Berman fell. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) judgment was correctly entered for the state; and (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Plaintiffs’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to vacate the judgment. View "Berman v. Sitrin" on Justia Law

Defendant pled nolo contendere to second degree robbery and was sentenced to a term of incarceration with eight and one-half years suspended, with probation. The state later filed a violation notice against Defendant for allegedly violating the terms of her probation. A hearing justice found that Defendant had violated the conditions of her probation by failing to keep the peace and maintain good behavior and imposed the previously suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion in executing the remaining eight and one-half years of Defendant’s previously suspended sentence. View "State v. McKinnon-Conneally" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-construction company filed suit asserting that Defendant-homeowners breached the parties’ contract in which Plaintiff agreed to complete construction work on Defendants’ home. Further, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were unjustly enriched in failing to pay the balance owed to Plaintiff. The trial justice awarded Plaintiff $55,455 in damages plus prejudgment interest on an offer of judgment that had been deposited in the Registry of the Superior Court. Defendants appealed the decision to award prejudgment interest, and Plaintiff cross-appealed the damages award. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of both parties and affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial justice was not clearly wrong in awarding statutory interest in the offer of judgment and in his conclusion that Plaintiff was entitled to $55,455. View "Raiche v. Scott" on Justia Law

In 2003, the Supreme Court held that Seattle Savings Bank had the right to foreclose on certain property that Defendant inherited from his mother. In 2007, the Bank executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Because Defendant refused to vacate the property, Fannie Mae filed a trespass and ejectment complaint. Defendant, in turn, argued that Fannie Mae was not entitled to possession of the property. The trial court awarded Fannie Mae possession of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court correctly found that Fannie Mae had the right to possess the property. View "Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n v. Malinou" on Justia Law

A mortgage deed designated Desmond Leone as the mortgagor of his home and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee, acting as nominee for the lender, Equity One, Inc. MERS later assigned its interest in the mortgage to Assets Recovery Center Investments, LLC (ARC). When Leone failed to make timely payments to the lender, ARC, which Equity One had authorized to act on its behalf, initiated foreclosure proceedings. Leone subsequently filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the assignment from MERS to ARC was invalid and also sought to quiet title to the property. A hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants - MERS, Equity One, and ARC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice properly found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the matter was ripe for summary judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Leone v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys." on Justia Law