Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In two consolidated actions, Edward Voccola (Mr. Voccola) sought to recover property which he alleged his daughter, Patricia, had wrongfully transferred. Patricia and her company, Red Fox Realty, LLC, were named as defendants. Mr. Voccola died during the pendency of the actions, and Mr. Voccola’s children, Barbara and Edward, in their capacities as co-executors of Mr. Voccola’s estate, were substituted as plaintiffs. The superior court entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err when she (1) concluded that Mr. Voccola’s signatures authorizing the transfer of the properties to Red Fox were not genuine; (2) determined that the transfer of Mr. Voccola’s properties was not a gift to Patricia; and (3) awarded Patricia $82,000 on her counterclaim. View "Voccola v. Forte" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased certain property at a tax sale and then filed a petition to foreclose tax lien seeking to foreclose Bank’s right of redemption with respect to the property. Bank did not timely file an answer after its receipt of the petition. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for entry of default and final decree and a motion for decree pro confesso. Thereafter, Bank filed a motion to file a late answer and its response to the petition, which contained an offer to redeem. The trial justice granted Bank’s motion to file a late answer and Bank’s request for redemption. The court then entered judgment allowing Bank and redeem the property and setting forth the amount of redemption. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) Bank’s motion to file a late answer should have been denied because there was no good cause shown for Bank’s failure to comply with the deadline set out in the petition; and (2) accordingly, Bank was in default and should not have been permitted to redeem the property. View "Conley v. Fontaine" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, tenants on property owned by Baird Properties, were required to vacate the premises they leased and to remove their belongings when the property was condemned due to a lack of electricity, heating and water. Plaintiffs brought an action under the Residential Landlord and Tenants Act alleging that Baird Properties and Michael Baird purposely sabotaged utility services to the property in order to set events in motion that would force Plaintiffs to vacate the premises. After a trial, the superior court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice correctly found that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between Plaintiffs and Baird Properties; (2) the trial justice did not err in determining that Baird tampered with essential services to the property; and (3) the award of attorney’s fees was reasonable. View "Gregoire v. Baird Props., LLC" on Justia Law

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) condemned a parcel of real property owned by Richard Deeble and his wife for highway purposes. The Deebles subsequently died. RIDOT utilized only a portion of the condemned property in furtherance of the relocation of an interstate. Plaintiff, the Estate of Richard Deeble, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against RIDOT, asserting that should RIDOT seek to sell or lease the condemned property, the Estate was entitled to a right of first refusal to repurchase or lease the land in accordance with article 6, section 19 of the Rhode Island Constitution. The superior court justice concluded that the provisions of article 6, section 19 did not pass to the Estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the rights guaranteed by article 6, section 19 terminate upon the death of the original condemnee. View "Estate of Richard J. Deeble v. Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

The dispute in this receivership action centered on the receiver’s sale of commercial property owned by P.T.A. Realty, LLC to NMLM Realty, LLC. NMLM’s agent, Liberty Title & Escrow Company, failed to list all the municipal taxes owed on the property, resulting in an overpayment of funds to Bank of America, N.A. NMLM filed a petition for restitution against the Bank, which Liberty incorporated in its own petition for restitution against the Bank. The Bank argued that it was insulated from a restitution claim as a third-party creditor that received the payment in good faith and without notice of Liberty’s error. A hearing justice ruled in favor of the Bank. NMLM and Liberty filed a joint notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no evidence that, at the time the proceeds from the sale were disbursed, the Bank knew that it was receiving an overpayment of funds; and (2) therefore, the Bank received the excess funds in good faith, and NMLM and Liberty could not seek the return of their erroneous payment predicated on the theory of unjust enrichment. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. P.T.A. Realty, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

John Izzo was the owner of certain property and his mother, Carmel Izzo, held a mortgage on the property. After the failure to pay sewer fees, the property was put up for sale at a tax sale. Defendant purchased the property and filed a petition to foreclose the Izzos’ (Plaintiffs) rights of redemption on the property (the petition). After a hearing, a final decree was entered foreclosing Plaintiffs’ rights of redemption to the property. Plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking entry of an order vacating the final decree foreclosing their rights of redemption, alleging inadequate notice of the petition. The trial justice granted Plaintiffs’ request, concluding that inadequate notice to Plaintiffs of the petition amounted to a denial of due process. An order subsequently implemented the trial justice’s bench decision and vacated the final decree foreclosing Plaintiffs’ rights of redemption. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court, holding (1) the trial justice erred in finding that notice of the petition as it pertained to John was inadequate since John was estopped from raising such an argument; and (2) the notice provided to Carmel was adequate. View "Izzo v. Victor Realty" on Justia Law

The Free & Clear Company (Free & Clear) filed suit alleging that the Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC) owed it damages. NBC admitted liability, and the case proceed to trial on the issue of damages only. The jury returned a verdict for Free & Clear in the amount of $680,277, and the trial justice added prejudgment interest in the amount of $756,169. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in instructing the jury; (2) properly reviewed the testimony of Free & Clear’s expert witness when issuing his decision; (3) did not err in refusing to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to portions of the testimony of Free & Clear’s expert witness; (4) did not err in denying NBC’s motion for a remittitur; (5) correctly calculated prejudgment interest; and (6) did not err by denying NBC’s motion for partial judgment as a matter of law. Further, the jury’s award of damages was not based on impermissible speculation. View "Free & Clear Co. v. Narragansett Bay Comm’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff operated a Wendy’s restaurant in East Greenwich. One defendant had received permission to build a new McDonald’s restaurant with a drive-through window on property located down the street. Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction and a writ of mandamus to prevent the construction of the drive-through facility until McDonald’s first submitted a special-use permit application for the drive-through window to the Town of East Greenwich’s Zoning Board of Review. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice correctly concluded that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the amended East Greenwich Zoning Ordinance permitted drive-through uses as a matter of right. View "CCF, LLC v. Pimental" on Justia Law

Sophie Danforth entered into a purchase and sales agreement (PSA) with Timothy and Rebecca More, pursuant to which Danforth agreed to sell, and the Mores agreed to purchase, certain real estate. The PSA provided that $30,000 would be paid as a deposit at the time the PSA was executed. The Mores failed to appear at the scheduled closing. Thereafter, Danforth filed an amended complaint alleging breach of contract, requesting that she be allowed to retain the Mores’ deposit, and seeking declaratory relief, asking the court to construe the terms of the PSA and to order the escrow agent to disburse the deposit to Danforth. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Danforth, concluding that Danforth was entitled to retain the deposit. The court further denied Danforth’s motion for attorney’s fees but awarded prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the grant of summary judgment in favor of Danforth, the award of prejudgment interest to Danforth, and the denial of attorneys’ fees. View "Danforth v. More" on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiffs filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the original master declaration creating Goat Island South - A Waterfront Condominium (GIS) was invalid and the second amended restated master declaration (SAR) was void ab initio. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims, ruling that some claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in earlier, related, litigation and that those claims were barred by the doctrine of estoppel by deed. The hearing justice also determined that the SAR was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ first two claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by deed; (2) the SAR is valid; (3) summary judgment in favor of the individually named GIS executive board defendants was appropriate; and (4) the hearing justice did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint. View "IDC Props., Inc. v. Goat Island S. Condo. Ass’n" on Justia Law