Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

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

In 2011, Plaintiff purchased a condominium unit at a condominium association lien foreclosure sale. In 2013, Plaintiff filed suit seeking to quiet title to the unit in his name. Plaintiff also sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent a foreclosure by Defendant, the prior owner’s first mortgage holder. The superior court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that Plaintiff took title to the property subject to Defendant’s mortgage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a condominium foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the Rhode Island Condominium Act extinguishes a prior-recorded first mortgage on the unit following the mortgagee’s failure to exercise the right of redemption provided for in R.I. Gen. Laws 34-36.1-3.21(c). Remanded. View "Twenty Eleven, LLC v. Botelho" on Justia Law

In 2006, Ingram executed a promissory note in favor of Loancity in the amount of $212,500 to finance the purchase of property in Providence and executed a mortgage on the property. The documents identified Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as “a separate corporation that is acting solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” After a series of assignments in 2009, Deutsche Bank held both the note and the mortgage to the property. Ingram failed to make the required payments. OneWest, under power of attorney for Deutsche Bank, mailed notice that a foreclosure sale on the property was scheduled for March 25, 2010. The foreclosure sale was advertised in the Providence Journal. At the scheduled sale, Deutsche Bank purchased the property for $95,066.40. Ingram sought declaratory relief and to quiet title to the property. The superior court dismissed. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting various allegations of improper procedure. View "Ingram v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc" on Justia Law

This case involved an ongoing dispute between two commercial landowners, Plaintiff and Defendant, over the existence of a prescriptive easement used by delivery trucks to access a loading dock owned by Plaintiff. After Defendant ordered the installation of barriers along the southwestern boundary of an express easement, it was nearly impossible for delivery vehicles to directly access the loading dock. Plaintiff filed a complaint, claiming a prescriptive easement over Defendant’s lot. In his second decision, the trial justice denied Plaintiff’s claim for a prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof on the element of hostility, and therefore, Plaintiff could not succeed on its claim. View "Butterfly Realty v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Rose Nulman Park Foundation, owned real property that was used as a park. In 2011, Defendants, Robert Lamoureux and Four Twenty Corporation, completed construction on a $1.8 million home. A prospective buyer of the home had a survey conducted which revealed that the building was entirely located on Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, asserting that the structure constituted a continuing trespass on the property and requesting a mandatory injunction ordering Defendants to remove the structure. The trial justice concluded that a 13,000 square foot intrusion, amounting to six percent of the Nulman property, was not a de minimus encroachment and, accordingly, ordered Defendants to remove the structure. The Supreme Court affirmed after concluding that it would be unjust to order the transfer of title to a portion of the Nulman property to Defendants or to award only money damages, holding that injunctive relief was the appropriate remedy in this case. View "Rose Nulman Park Found. v. Four Twenty Corp." on Justia Law

The Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Association brought an interpleader action against multiple defendants for the purpose of determining the proper disposition of insurance proceeds. Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), one of the defendants, moved for summary judgment on the interpleader claim and against defendant Genoveva Santana-Sosa’s cross-claim. The superior court granted summary judgment for BANA, concluding that BANA was entitled to the entire amount of the insurance proceeds and that Santana-Sosa was entitled to none of the disputed funds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that BANA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "R.I. Joint Reinsurance Ass'n v. Santana-Sosa" on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an adjustable-rate note evidencing a loan from Bank of America and executed a mortgage on property that secured the loan. Bank of America was designated as the Lender and the mortgagee. After Plaintiff defaulted on his loan, a foreclosure auction was held at which Celtic Roman Group placed a successful bid. Before Celtic could close on the property, Plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens in the land evidence records. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint challenging Bank of America’s authority to foreclose on the property. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff defaulted on his loan; (2) the foreclosure sale was lawfully noticed; and (3) Bank of America was the holder of the note at the time of foreclosure. View "McGovern v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was which party was entitled to insurance funds under an insurance policy on a parcel of property that sustained water damage. Stanley Gurnick and Phoenix-Gurnick, RIGP claimed they owned the property as a result of a foreclosure sale. Navigant Credit Union claimed it was entitled to the funds as the named mortgagee/loss payee in the insurance policy. The superior court decided that Navigant was entitled to the insurance proceeds because the funds were personal property under the insurance contract and Navigant was named a loss payee under that contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice correctly determined that Navigant was entitled to the insurance proceeds. View "R.I. Joint Reinsurance Ass'n v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law