Contact Us
Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

Municipal housing authorities in Rhode Island have been established to support the greater public good by protecting residents’ ability to live in affordable and safe housing. Because these administrative authorities are acting in furtherance of the public interest, state laws are designed in ways to allow public housing authorities to take possession of private land using the powers of eminent domain. Private property owners who have land taken from them by a public housing authority are entitled to compensation for the fair market value of the property. The exact amount of compensation that a landowner should receive from the government as part of an eminent domain proceeding is often a source of conflict. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a landowner’s challenge to the compensation he was awarded when his property was seized by eminent domain.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was the owner of a subdivision-sized tract of land near Providence. After constructing a home for his family on part of the land, the plaintiff sought to divide the remaining land into eight lots. Before the plaintiff started development, he was notified by the Providence Public Buildings Authority (the defendant in the case) that the municipality was seeking development rights over the undeveloped portion of the plaintiff’s land in order to build affordable public housing.

The Rhode Island General Laws outline the procedures for a public housing authority to seek development rights for private land, and in accordance with those procedures, the parties retained appraisers to determine the value of the land. After the defendant’s appraisers submitted a valuation for the development rights of the land, the plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to purchase the land outright. Although the statute allowed a property owner to demand an outright purchase, the trial judge denied the plaintiff’s request, finding that it was made too close to the date of trial, and would be unfair to the defendant. At a trial on the valuation, the judge accepted the defendant’s appraisal numbers and ordered the plaintiff to be paid approximately $500,000 for the development rights of the undeveloped property.

Published on:

The work of administrative child protection agencies (colloquially called “Child Protective Services” but known as the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth, and Families in this state) can be some of the most difficult and emotionally taxing legal work imaginable. The DCYF is tasked with the difficult job of determining when a natural parent should lose their parental rights. The DCFY has additional responsibilities besides advocating for the termination of a parent’s rights. The DCYF takes a primary role in ensuring the safety of at-risk children while the process is ongoing, as well as finding a permanent placement for the adoption of the children after parental rights have been terminated.

The DCYF recently succeeded in denying a natural grandfather the opportunity for placement and adoption of his grandson, after the natural father was found to be an unsuitable caretaker. Based on criminal and civil investigations, the DCYF initiated proceedings by taking the minor child from his natural father’s custody and placing him in a temporary foster home. The child’s grandfather attempted to have the child placed with him, both temporarily, and on a permanent basis. Proceeding without an attorney, the grandfather attempted to apply with the DCYF to have the child placed with him, although he did not follow the exact procedures required to make the request, and it was denied.

Later, the natural father’s rights were definitively and permanently terminated, and the child was adopted to an unrelated family, against the grandfather’s objections. The grandfather appealed to a higher court to challenge the denial of his attempts to adopt the child, seeking a declaratory judgment that would affirm that he had been wronged by the DCYF. On appeal, the court found that the grandfather lost all basis to challenge any of the courts’ determination because the father lost his parental rights, and at that point, the grandfather had no rights to the child. This ruling was made in spite of the fact that the grandfather started requesting placement and adoption long before the father’s rights were terminated.

Published on:

The Rhode Island state government, as well as municipal governing bodies in the state, delegate many functions to administrative agencies to streamline the administration of government. Unlike legislative bodies or courts, which enact and interpret the law, administrative agencies are tasked with enforcing the law as written. Administrative agencies are heavily used in Rhode Island to determine permissible land use by residents and businesses. Zoning boards, natural resource councils, and permitting agencies are all used to determine who can develop Rhode Island properties and how.

If an administrative agency makes a determination that is not in accordance with the law, the aggrieved party has the right to appeal the decision to the state court to examine whether the decision is supported by the law. The Providence division of the Rhode Island Superior Court recently rejected an administrative agency’s denial of a plaintiff’s proposed development of a shellfish farm on coastal Rhode Island.

The plaintiff from the recently decided case is a private citizen who submitted a proposal to the defendant, which controls the permits for coastal Rhode Island. According to the facts discussed in the ruling, the plaintiff proposed a small non-commercial shellfish farm, which would be used partially as an educational resource to teach children about shellfish and shellfish cultivation in Rhode Island. The defendant, which consisted of a board of eight members, held a public hearing on the plaintiff’s proposal, where the plaintiff, as well as supporters and opponents of the proposal, presented their case to the board.

Published on:

The recent rise in the popularity of sustainable and local agriculture has resulted in an increase in the number of chickens and other poultry that are being raised on residential properties in the last decade. Rhode Island state law allows for residents to raise poultry on their property, so long as the municipality and property owner permits it. Not all Rhode Island residents support broad permissions for others to raise livestock on their residential property. A locally published news report discusses an elderly Rhode Island couple’s attempts to enact an ordinance in their town to address the nuisance caused by their neighbor’s chickens and turkeys.

According to the local news article discussing this story, the couple has lived in their South Kingstown home for over 45 years, and the neighbors with the birds moved in about 3 years ago. The two neighbors share a driveway, and shortly after the new neighbors arrived, they began to raise chickens and turkeys. The elderly couple noticed that their neighbors’ chickens and turkeys were entering their property, digging around the ground, and leaving feces and other messes. Additionally, the birds were loud and at times threatening, even causing the couple’s dog to injure itself when attempting to scare the birds off.

The couple has sought help from the local police department to address the nuisance, but the police are unable to help. The couple instead went to the city council and the media to drum up support for regulations or a ban on residential poultry husbandry. According to the news report, some council members are resistant to the ban, because of the economic benefit of allowing people to raise poultry on their land.

Published on:

When parents split up, custody and care of the children becomes an extremely important issue to resolve. Although some couples agree on custody, visitation, and support conditions for their co-parenting arrangement, court orders memorializing an enforceable agreement are usually necessary to ensure each party is held accountable to uphold their part of an agreement. Stipulated custody agreements that are reduced to an enforceable court order may later be modified by a separate petition or motion, which may bring parties back into court after a custody case appears to be resolved. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently affirmed a state family court ruling that denied a mother’s request to relocate to Florida with the parties’ child.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff in the recently decided case is the father of a child that he shares with the defendant. The parties were never married, but after they broke up, the plaintiff sought court orders to allow him visitation and partial custody of his child. After a trial, the plaintiff was granted partial custody and visitation with the child. After the entry of the custody orders, the defendant has since filed a motion with the court asking her to be allowed to relocate to Florida with the child. Rhode Island law requires that relocation by one parent against the wishes of the other parent can only be permitted if a court determines that the relocation would be in the best interest of the child.

The defendant argued that relocating was in the best interest of the child because she was struggling to raise her children as a single mother (she had another child from a previous relationship), and her mother would be available to help in Florida. Additionally, she had been offered a job in Florida. The family court evaluated the parties’ arguments and denied the mother’s motion. Specifically, the family court judge found that the mother failed to demonstrate how the relocation would be in the child’s best interest.

Published on:

Property insurance policies are contracts entered into between an insurance company and an insured party. These contracts are usually drafted by the insurance company, and often contain provisions that appear innocuous but are included to benefit the insurance company at the expense of their client. The tremendous economic damage caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a nationwide deluge of insurance claims, filed by property owners attempting to recoup some of the pandemic-related losses. When an insurance company denies a Covid-19 related claim, the client may pursue a civil claim against the company to enforce the insurance policy. A Superior court in Providence, Rhode Island recently heard a real estate company’s claim against their insurance company.

According to the facts discussed in the recent ruling, the plaintiff in the recently decided case is one of the largest privately-held real estate investment companies in the world. The plaintiff’s business includes the leasing of residential, commercial, and industrial properties in Rhode Island. The plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the defendant to cover several properties they owned in Rhode Island. After the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic, the plaintiff was unable to keep many of their properties occupied and lost a substantial amount of income as a result.

Based on their losses, the plaintiff made a claim with the defendant, demanding that the defendant honor the insurance contract because the “physical damage” done by the SARS-COV-19 virus was what resulted in their loss. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim, noting exclusions in the plaintiff’s policy that limited the covered losses resulting from communicable diseases or contamination. After the defendant rejected their claim, the plaintiff filed a suit in Rhode Island state court.

Published on:

When public utilities interfere with the private use of land, conflict is extremely common. Often, private landowners will be upset by development, construction, and utility work, as these activities can negatively affect the landowners’ comfort, safety, and property values. Members of the public may be able to successfully challenge municipal utility work or other construction projects by claiming the construction constitutes a public or private nuisance. A Rhode Island state court recently denied a group of plaintiffs’ request to temporarily halt the operation of a wind turbine while their nuisance case against the Town of Portsmouth proceeds.

The plaintiffs in the recently decided case are a group of neighbors in Portsmouth who live close to a wind turbine that was constructed on the grounds of a high school in 2016 at the town’s behest. The plaintiffs grouped together and filed suit against the town, seeking to stop the operation of the wind turbine because it was a nuisance. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the sound of the turbine was unreasonably loud and that the “shadow flicker” from the blades against the sun was irritating and interfered with their enjoyment of the property. In addition to asking for the turbine to be permanently shuttered, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a temporary injunction, which would stop the operation of the turbine while the plaintiffs’ claims proceeded toward trial.

The Superior Court in Newport heard the plaintiffs’ request and declined to issue the injunction. In order for a Rhode Island court to issue an injunction in a nuisance case, a plaintiff must show that failure to issue the injunction would cause them immediate and irreparable harm. The court ruled that because the plaintiffs waited five years to file their suit, the argument for immediate harm lacked merit. Additionally, for an injunction to be issued, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that their claim was likely to succeed at trial. Because the plaintiffs had issues with witness credibility, as well as a lack of evidence to prove several required elements of the plaintiffs’ ultimate claim, the court found that there was an insufficient likelihood that the plaintiffs’ claim would succeed at trial. As a result of these findings, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request.

Published on:

Rhode Island zoning laws and regulations are designed to allow property owners and residents the most freedom in developing their properties while protecting neighbors, the public, the municipality, and the environment from the possible effects of development. As the culture and economy of coastal Rhode Island develop, some zoning laws and requirements are functioning to prevent property owners from making the best use of their land.

New homes along the Rhode Island coast have been getting larger and larger, as the housing market solidifies. Many coastal areas are shifting from seasonal “vacation home” occupancy styles to year-round habitation. Because of these changes, many of the zoning requirements for construction do not allow for the construction that property owners may desire. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently published a ruling on an appeal filed by a coastal property owner whose construction plans were denied by the municipal zoning board.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case has been the owner of two adjacent small lots in the town of Narragansett for several decades. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff sought permission from the town to build a home that spanned the two small lots. The plaintiff’s proposed construction would not be permitted by the zoning laws in effect at the time, so the plaintiff requested that the town approve special use permits in order for the construction to proceed. The town rejected the plaintiff’s request, finding that the plaintiff’s requested exemptions from zoning requirements would negatively affect the neighborhood and that the requested house was simply too large for the lot.

Published on:

The arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic sparked a shift in real estate markets nationwide, with smaller, satellite cities and regions attracting workers from larger cities. Workers with remote work opportunities sought to move to areas with less expensive real estate and a lower cost of living, as the remote work revolution that accompanies pandemic life made living in large cities less desirable.

The real estate market in Rhode Island has been significantly affected by this phenomenon, as our proximity to New York, Boston, and other New England economic centers makes Rhode Island a desirable destination for remote work. In addition to the remote-work immigrants who are moving into our state, Rhode Island is also seeing an influx in wealthy people who are purchasing luxury properties at historic prices. A recently published news report discusses this phenomenon and the effects it will have on the Rhode Island real estate market as a whole.

The recently published report focuses on the effects on the luxury residential real estate market in Rhode Island. According to the report, over 700 homes in the state sold for over $1 million in 2021, with over half of those sales to out-of-state or international buyers. The article notes that although Rhode Island is situated near financial centers such as the NYC metropolitan area and Boston, real estate has been undervalued in the state for decades, and prices are catching up. According to sources cited in the article, the median price of a single-family home in Rhode Island rose by over 14% in 2021.

Published on:

Municipal zoning regulations are often developed as a means to protect present property owners and residents from changes that could negatively affect the value of their property or the character of the neighborhood. Often zoning regulations can be used to ensure that a neighborhood only includes residential property or only single-family units. While zoning regulations can be effective at preventing low-density neighborhoods from becoming too dense and crowded, the regulations often serve to prevent developers from constructing affordable housing units. A recently published local news report discusses how zoning regulations in Pawtucket are making it difficult to address the state’s affordable housing crisis.

The recently published news report discusses the efforts of a nonprofit organization that was founded to help foster children find affordable housing after they age out of foster care. Because foster children who age out of foster care are often looking for a small studio or one-bedroom units at an affordable price, single-family housing is not always a feasible option. The organization featured in the article sought to purchase single-family homes and divide them into multiple apartments for their clients. According to the news report, the organization purchased a building that was converted into four separate units, which could house between 8-10 people. Unfortunately, the municipal zoning board rejected the organization’s proposal to occupy the fourth unit, as there was not sufficient parking available to meet zoning requirements.

The zoning requirements at issue demand that each residential unit has two parking spots of off-street parking available. Although it is important to make sure that there is parking available for residents before allowing them to move in, the article notes that the application of this particular requirement is counterproductive. Of the 10 people that would live in the proposed new building, 6 spots are available, and only two spots appeared to be needed. By requiring two parking spots for each unit, the law is preventing people who don’t even own a vehicle from finding housing. To address this problem, municipal zoning boards are being encouraged to update the over 30-year-old zoning codes that require so much parking. People seeking new construction or renovations can also petition the zoning board for a variance or exception to approve a proposal that doesn’t meet the zoning requirements outright.

Contact Information