In the recently decided case, the owner of a carriage barn in a township’s historical district sought dimensional variances to build a first floor primary bedroom and a handicap-accessible bathroom. Appellants, whose property bordered the owner’s, argued that the proposed design did not demonstrate a genuine hardship. Instead, they characterized the additions as a mere design preference rather than preserving the land’s unique characteristics. At a zoning board hearing, the architect testified that she carefully considered the footprint of the proposed design, which would improve the property’s aesthetic qualities. The board granted the relief, finding that it would not alter the general character of the surrounding area. It also rejected Appellants’ alternative design proposals.

On appeal, Appellants argued, among other things, that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine hardship because the modifications were related to her physical disability rather than the land’s unique characteristics, which violated a local ordinance. The Superior Court disagreed. Instead, it found that the board correctly determined that the applicant’s alleged hardship was not based solely on her disability but also the land’s unique characteristics. For example, by moving the property addition away from its existing footprint, the proposed design would separate the historical features from the modern expansion. Because the property was located in a historical district, the board correctly found this old vs. new distinction important to achieve a significant historical objective. Therefore, the court found substantial evidence to support the zoning board’s conclusion that the owner alleged a hardship sufficient to grant a variance.

Contact a Rhode Island Real Estate Lawyer at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC Today

If you are seeking a variance to modify your property, you may encounter difficulty showing that you meet one of the legally recognized hardships. Depending on the hardship you cite, a particularly demanding zoning board may not be receptive to your application. An experienced Rhode Island real estate attorney can help you prepare a persuasive application for a variance. The attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC have helped property owners navigate complicated zoning laws throughout the state of Rhode Island. Our attorneys have years of experience successfully representing property owners in various zoning matters. Through our dedicated representation, we can work with you to create the strongest possible case for approving your plans. To schedule a free and confidential consultation, contact us at 401-300-4055.

According to the recent judicial opinion, the dispute occurred when a town partnered with an affordable housing developer to plan affordable housing within the town’s nature conservation area. The town’s Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP) requires the town to partner with accordable housing organizations and nature conservancy groups to achieve both affordable housing development and watershed preservation. Pursuant to the CCP, the housing organization applied for a permit, which the town’s Planning Commission approved. The Commission found no evidence that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the town’s watershed preservation. Challenging the decision in court, Appellants argued that the development conflicts with CCP provisions related to water conservation and population density limits in the conservation area.

Ultimately, the Superior Court upheld the Commission’s decision to approve the permit. First, the court found that the CCP unambiguously requires the town to identify parcels of land suitable for affordable housing outside of the downtown area. The CCP also allowed for increasing density in the conservation area for affordable housing so long as the development plan carefully considered public health and safety. While the CCP recognized that increased density is most appropriate in the downtown area, it did not provide that downtown was the only appropriate area. Therefore, if rejected Appellants’ assertion that the CCP prohibited increased population density in the conservation area.

Additionally, the court found that the Commission correctly found no evidence in the record showing a likelihood of threat to water conservation. The record reflected that the town had successfully expanded its public water supply system, mitigating concerns that the affordable housing area would impact the water supply. Moreover, the Commission complied with a CCP directive to ensure the town’s water supply can support future population growth by conditioning the permit’s approval on an independent groundwater study. Therefore, the court upheld the Commission’s approval, which carefully balanced the town’s goals of water conservation and affordable housing.

Do You Have Questions About Seeking a Development Permit?

If you wish to bring a permit application before your zoning board, you may face pushback from local community members with conflicting interests. Even if the zoning board issues the permit, these community members may challenge the permit in court. If you are seeking a permit for housing development, contact the Rhode Island real estate attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP for assistance. If a local actor challenges your permit in court, our skilled attorneys can help you argue that the zoning board properly granted permission to construct your development project. Alternatively, we also help you challenge a board decision to deny your permit. We are here to help with your property development needs. To schedule a free consultation, call 401-300-4055.

First, Rhode Island law contains guidelines for fences and other property lines. RI Gen Laws § 34-10-9 requires two neighbors to place partition fences on the dividing line of their properties. The rules also contain specifications for lawful fences to be considered proper dividing lines. Under serious cases, the law also guards against fences built with a malicious intent to interfere with a neighbor’s property. If someone proves their neighbor constructed a fence with malicious intent, they may be able to receive damages and a court order to remove the fence.

Relatedly, the law also governs trees and other plants near the property line. When a dispute over trees and plants arises, the parties must first determine their ownership. If a neighbor’s tree or plant remains within their property line, the neighbor has the right to maintain it as they see fit. However, if Neighbor One’s tree crosses into Neighbor Two’s Property, then Neighbor Two has the right to trim the plant back to Neighbor One’s property line. However, if a neighbor alters any trees that are entirely within the other neighbor’s property, that neighbor has engaged in unauthorized tree cutting. Rhode Island statute § 34-20-1 imposes penalties for unauthorized tree cutting, which could result in jail time in extreme cases.

To resolve property disputes, a party can appeal to a county fence viewer. The role of a fence viewer is to resolve disputes that arise from partition fences or other dividing lines. According to § 34-10-17, the viewer may settle contested property lines and assign each party their section after providing 10-days’ notice to the parties. Notably, their decision binds both present and future occupants of the property.

Another mechanism to enforce Rhode Island property line disputes is the boundary by acquiescence rule. Unlike other property laws, the boundary by acquiescence rule is a court-made rule rather than a statute passed through the legislature. Under this rule, even if a survey places the property line elsewhere, the court can enforce longstanding boundary markers that property owners recognize as their boundary. For example, if neighbors have long recognized a fence as their dividing line, but a later survey determines that the actual line is somewhere else, the court can enforce the fence as the legal dividing line.

Speak with A Rhode Island Real Estate Attorney Today Property disputes may fail to settle on their own. Often, the parties may need to seek the representation and advice of a real estate attorney. Fortunately, the Rhode Island real estate firm of Biloudeau Capalbo, LLP are here to assist with favorably resolving property disputes. If your neighbor has contested the line between your property or acted maliciously, our attorneys can help pursue a court order helps you resolve the dispute and enjoy your property. To schedule a free initial consultation, call our office at 401-300-4055.

The case in question revolves around a property owner who filed a complaint seeking to reverse a decision by the Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (PUC) that found him responsible for repairs to a leaking water pipe. Because the administrative agency involved had already issued a decision, the property owner faced procedural hurdles to have his arguments properly considered. The Superior Court’s review of administrative decisions, as governed by Rhode Island’s Administrative Procedures Act, only allows judicial consideration of administrative decisions under certain conditions. Importantly, the court’s review is limited to determining whether legally competent evidence exists in the record to support the agency’s decision. The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency regarding facts or credibility.

The property owner’s primary argument was that the water pipe in question was the responsibility of the NWD and not privately owned. To support this claim, the Appellant presented several key points, which were ultimately rejected by the state court. The Court focused on the commonly accepted practice that places responsibility for water infrastructure on the property owner for any issues that may occur past the curbside shutoff valve. The water line in question had two shutoff valves, and the leak occurred in between the curbside valve and the second valve, which was closer to the property owner’s home.

The Court determined that the area of the pipe that was damaged was the responsibility of the property owner, and as a result, his claim for reimbursement for the expenses incurred in repairing the pipe was denied. As a result of this ruling, the property owner will be solely responsible for the condition of the water pipes between the first shutoff valve and his home.

This case exemplifies the intricate legal processes involved in determining responsibility for utility leaks and repairs. Cases like these underscore the importance of understanding the legal framework when dealing with utility-related disputes, as the outcome can significantly impact property owners and utility companies alike. If you or a loved one is facing a problem with public utilities servicing your property, either you or the utility provider may be responsible for repairs. The experienced Rhode Island property lawyers at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP can assist you in advocating for your rights to ensure that the utility company is required to repair their work when appropriate . Our lawyers represent people in Rhode Island in all types of property issues, including disputes with contractors and architects. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

Adverse possession is a legal principle that has its origins in the Roman Empire, where possession of an item without a title could eventually lead to ownership if the original owner failed to claim the property. In contemporary times, adverse possession laws exist in all 50 states, providing a legal framework for resolving disputes over property boundaries and ownership. The basic premise of adverse possession is that if an individual openly inhabits and improves a neglected piece of property for a specified period, they can gain legal title to that property. In Rhode Island, this statutory period is typically set at 10 years.

One common scenario in Rhode Island where adverse possession comes into play is when a property owner discovers that a portion of their neighbor’s property, such as a fence or structure, encroaches upon their land by a few inches or more. This situation can give rise to property boundary disputes and, potentially, premises liability issues. Adverse possession provides a mechanism to address such disputes by legally transferring ownership of the encroached-upon area to the party who has openly inhabited and improved it. This can bring clarity to the property boundary, preventing future conflicts.

Rhode Island’s adverse possession law is relatively straightforward. To claim legal title to a piece of property through adverse possession, an individual must satisfy the following elements:

1. Continuous Possession: The individual must openly and continuously inhabit the property for a minimum of 10 years. During this period, they should treat the land as their own, using it as an owner would.
2. Lack of Permission: The possession must be non-permissive or without the owner’s consent. In other words, the individual must occupy the land without permission from the legal owner.
3. Exclusive Possession: The possession must be exclusive, meaning that the individual has sole control over the property and does not share it with the legal owner or others.
4. Hostile Possession: In the context of adverse possession, “hostile” does not imply animosity or aggression. Instead, it means that the possession is in opposition to the legal owner’s claim. In essence, the individual must act as if they are the true owner, without acknowledging the legal owner’s rights.
5. Open and Notorious: The individual’s possession of the property should be open and notorious, meaning it is visible and apparent to anyone who might have an interest in the land.
6. Continuous: The possession must be uninterrupted throughout the entire 10-year period.

It’s important to note that while the state law does not explicitly require the payment of property taxes or making improvements, these factors can strengthen the case for adverse possession. Improvements, in particular, can demonstrate the individual’s investment in and commitment to the property. If a landowner becomes aware of the adverse possession claim, they have the opportunity to challenge it. However, the statute grants them 10 years from the date they discover the adverse possession to take legal action, even if they were under a legal disability at the time the claim began.

Do You Have a Question About a Rhode Island Property Boundary Dispute?

If you are concerned about an encroachment onto your property by a neighboring structure or improvement, you may be at risk of losing title to your land based on an adverse possession claim. Adverse possession cases can be intricate and require a deep understanding of property law and the specific requirements of Rhode Island statutes. The experienced Rhode Island property lawyers at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP assist property owners in asserting their property rights and maintaining rightful ownership of their property. If you have a question about a property line dispute, reach out today for a free consultation. Our lawyers represent people in Rhode Island in all types of property issues. If you have questions about a Rhode Island real estate issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 to schedule a consultation.

Rhode Island’s legal framework recognizes individual rights when it comes to coastal access. Citizens of Rhode Island have several rights, including fishing from the shore, swimming in the Sea, gathering seaweed, and passing along the shore. Sometimes the exercise of these rights is not desirable to the property owners adjacent to the shore, and conflict over what access is required or permitted occurs often.

One common source of confusion is discerning public areas from private ones. In Rhode Island, the public has the right to access the beach seaward of the mean high water mark. This mark is distinct from the high tide mark, which is important to understand. According to the State Constitution (Article 1, Section 17), the public also has the right to lateral access, which allows them to move along the shore without specific mention of the difference in the mean high water mark, however many common shore-adjacent activities allowed under these laws primarily take place above the mean high tide line, and it’s crucial to respect these boundaries.

Erosion poses another challenge when discussing public and private access. The dynamic nature of beaches means that property lines fluctuate due to natural processes like erosion and accretion (sand deposition). Property owners who apply for fencing for erosion control or dune restoration must ensure that fencing remains 15 feet from the dune crest. After significant storms, this distance may change. However, it’s essential to note that CRMC permits stipulate that fencing should not block lateral access.

Installing fencing and posting private property signs on the beach is a regulated activity. These actions require permits from the CRMC (Coastal Resources Management Council). Importantly, preventing lateral access is prohibited, and property owners must ensure that their actions do not impede public access to the shore.

Rhode Island Property Owners Can Protect their Property While Honoring Public Access Requirements

Although the interplay between public access rights and private ownership rights can be contentious, property owners can take steps to protect their land from trespassing members of the public. The experienced Rhode Island property lawyers at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP can assist property owners by advising and representing them on the legally acceptable ways to restrict access and activity on their property. If you have a question about coastal property rights, reach out today for a free consultation. Our lawyers represent people in Rhode Island in all types of property issues. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 to schedule a consultation.

Under Rhode Island state law, the state or municipalities are entitled to take public property from a citizen if the taking is to serve a “public purpose,” and the citizen is fairly compensated for the taking at market value. State laws also allow government agencies and subdivisions to take private property for “economic development” purposes, however, such a taking must be compensated at 150% of the market value of the property. A group of Rhode Island property owners recently made a claim before a state court, requesting that they be compensated at the increased 150% rate based on a municipality’s taking of their private property to expand a local airport.

According to the facts discussed in the recently released judicial opinion, the plaintiffs in the case are a group of property owners whose property is situated adjacent to an existing airport. The airport and city officials proposed to expand the airport, using eminent domain powers to seize the plaintiffs’ property to complete the expansion. The plaintiffs were offered compensation for the fair market value of the property. In response to the offer, the plaintiffs instead demand compensation for 150% of the property’s fair market value, arguing that the airport construction was an economic development purpose that entitled them to the increased compensation.

In addressing the parties’ arguments, the court sided with the government parties, finding that airport construction is an infrastructure project that meets the definition of a public purpose under the statute. The plaintffs’ arguments that the construction would also support economic development (and the taking should therefore be compensated as such) did not persuade the Court. Importantly, the court found that if a taking served both a public purpose and economic development, it must be construed as to support a public purpose and only subject to a market value compensation under the relevant law. As a result of the recent opinion, the plaintiffs will only be compensated for the fair market value of their property.

Are You Facing an Eminent Domain Claim?

If you or a loved one is facing a government claim to seize your property under eminent domain, you deserve to be fairly compensated for the taking. In some instances, you may be entitled to challenge and prevent the taking. The amount of compensation offered for taking can vary greatly based on the application of various state laws, as well as the variances in property appraisal and valuation techniques. Seeking the advice of The qualified Rhode Island real estate attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP can help you ensure that your property is only seized if it is necessary while ensuring that you obtain the maximum compensation for your loss. If you are facing the seizure of your property, reach out to our Rhode Island real estate attorneys today to discuss your options. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the legal dispute originated when the Appellant filed a complaint, seeking to reverse an administrative decision and hold the NWD responsible for maintaining and repairing specific water distribution facilities. The Appellant also claimed reimbursement for repairs made and sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The court’s review of the case was guided by § 42-35-15 of the Administrative Procedures Act, which outlines the standard of review for administrative decisions. The court’s role was to determine whether there was legally competent evidence to support the agency’s decision, rather than substituting its judgment for that of the agency on questions of fact.

The court examined various pieces of evidence, including historical records, testimonies, and regulations, to determine the ownership of the water distribution facilities in question. The Appellant argued that specific pieces of the water infrastructure were owned by the NWD, while the NWD maintained that these were privately owned by individual property owners. The court upheld the Hearing Officer’s determination that the utility service equipment was privately owned. This conclusion was based on a careful analysis of historical records, including notations and diagrams in the Register Books, which indicated ownership by property owners. The court deferred to the Hearing Officer’s application of the “incidents of ownership” standard, emphasizing that as long as the conclusion was supported by legally competent evidence, it should stand.

The court addressed the NWD’s actions in relation to the water distribution facilities, including turning the water off and on during construction and repairing leaks. The court clarified that these actions did not constitute an exercise of dominion and control over the facilities but were part of the NWD’s responsibility to provide reliable service to its customers. As a result of the court’s decision, the city will not be held responsible to repair and service the utility access lines.

Addressing Questions Concerning Utility Service and Equipment in Rhode Island

This recent opinion underscores the importance of admissible evidence in the court’s limited role in reviewing administrative decisions. People with questions about the ownership or responsibility to maintain utility infrastructure can find answers by retaining a qualified Rhode Island real estate attorney. The experienced Rhode Island property lawyers at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP can assist you by performing a thorough analysis of historical records, legal statutes, and precedent, to answer your questions and advocate for your cause. Our lawyers represent people in Rhode Island in all types of property issues, including disputes with municipalities over administrative decisions. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

At the heart of this legal dispute lies a contractual agreement between an architectural firm and a restaurant. The restaurant hired an architectural firm to design a construction plan for renovating the restaurant property after a winter storm damaged the roof. The parties agreed that the plaintiff would prepare and deliver plans for the renovation, and the defendant made a partial payment toward the contract. According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the defendant stopped paying on the contract and abandoned their plan to use the plaintiff’s services to renovate the building. As a result, the plaintiff sued the defendant for the remaining balance due under the contract.

The court’s ruling centered on the existence of a binding contract, substantiated by a fixed lump-sum fee arrangement for architectural services. This arrangement mandated that the architect would receive predetermined compensation for his architectural work, disbursed in installments linked to specific project milestones. Regrettably, the defendant defaulted on their end of the deal, not only abandoning the contract but also discontinuing payments to the architect.

The restaurant, in an attempt to deflect liability, raised the argument of unjust enrichment – suggesting that the plaintiff had unfairly benefited without providing equitable compensation. However, the court swiftly dismissed this claim, emphasizing that unjust enrichment claims typically come into play when benefits are received without an existing contractual agreement. The existence of a binding contract in this case rendered the defendant’s counterclaim invalid.

The court’s ruling underscored the paramount importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the weighty consequences of material breach. The court deemed the defendant’s failure to meet payment obligations and the subsequent termination of the plaintiff’s services as a material breach of contract. The principle was clear – a material breach grants the non-breaching party the right to withhold their own contractual obligations.

This case serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of competent legal advice, as well as transparent and open communication between all stakeholders involved in construction projects. It serves as a stark lesson that unilateral actions such as contract termination must be meticulously documented and justified – especially when financial transactions are involved. This lesson carries particular relevance for parties seeking insurance claims related to construction ventures, as the court scrutinized whether the termination was warranted and if the party making the claim was genuinely enriched unjustly.

Addressing Questions Concerning Contractor Disputes in Rhode Island

If you or a loved one is experiencing a dispute with a construction company or subcontractor, you may need the help of legal counsel to resolve the situation to your benefit. The experienced Rhode Island property lawyers at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP, can assist you. Our dedicated attorneys understand how property and contractual law are interrelated, and with our skilled representation, you can be confident that you will get the result that you deserve. Our lawyers represent people in Rhode Island in all types of property issues, including disputes with contractors and architects. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

According to a recently published appellate opinion, the plaintiff in the recently decided case is an energy development company that had applied in 2018 with the defendant town to develop three solar field projects. At the time the plaintiff submitted their application, which was submitted as a “pre-application,” the proposed solar farms were permitted under town zoning ordinances. A few months after the plaintiff submitted their application, the Exeter town council amended its zoning ordinances to issue a moratorium preventing the construction of any new utility-scale solar farms in residential areas. This zoning change essentially foreclosed the plaintiff from pursuing their proposed solar projects.

The plaintiff sued the town in state court as a result of the zoning change. The plaintiff argued that their right to be permitted for the construction project had vested before the town changed the ordinance. The plaintiff argued that the town did not have the power to reject their application under the new ordinances because the application was submitted before the laws were changed. The town disputed the plaintiff’s allegations, claiming that the moratorium on new construction was validly passed pursuant to the town’s emergency powers. The town argued that the number of pending applications for solar projects had overburdened the municipality and that they were unable to keep up with the permit requests.

The Superior Court ruled in favor of the town, resulting in an appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The high court agreed with the Superior Court, ruling that the plaintiff had only submitted a “pre-application” before the ordinance change and that the town was within its emergency authority to pass and enforce the development moratorium. As a result of the appellate opinion, the plaintiff will not be able to develop their solar project in Exeter.

Strategies for Zoning and Permitting Issues

If you are looking to develop or improve property in Rhode Island, one of the first hurdles to clear will be with the municipality where the construction may occur. Town councils and zoning boards are often made up of part-time employees with little knowledge of the law, and their outsized influence in the approval of construction projects can prevent useful and permissible projects from brewing approval. The qualified Rhode Island real estate attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP can help you present your project to a skeptical municipal government, and we can assist you in challenging a municipal decision in court if your proposal is unfairly rejected. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

The corporate plaintiff in the case, Newport and New Road, LLC (“Newport”) filed a petition in the Rhode Island Superior Court against the tax assessor of the City of East Providence. The petition alleged that the defendant conducted an illegal property-tax assessment in 2012 and an excessive tax assessment in 2013. The City argued that Newport’s claim fell beyond the required three-month statute of limitations. Conversely, Newport claimed it could sue within ten years of the defendant’s assessments based on a separate statute from the one that carried a three-month time limit. The Superior Court agreed with the City, holding that the three-month statute of limitations barred Newport from suit. On appeal, Newport argued that the lower court erred in applying the three-year statute of limitations. Instead, Newport asserted that the proper statute of limitations for its tax assessment claim is ten years, the time limit that generally applies to civil actions in Rhode Island. Additionally, Newport argued that the statute did not reference the three-month statute of limitations, meaning the court should have interpreted the “silent” statute as imposing the standard ten-year limit.

Based on its own statutory interpretation, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of the City. While the specific section of the statute at issue did not specify a time limit, it unambiguously referenced other sections that imposed three-month filing deadlines. The court explained that Newport’s interpretation would ignore the general requirement to interpret a statute in its entirety rather than reading each section in isolation. Additionally, the three-month statute of limitations reflected legislative intent to resolve tax assessment disputes as quickly as possible. Based on the entire statute and the clear language of the section at issue, the court found that Newport’s challenges to its tax assessments were untimely due to the three-month statute of limitations that applied. This case illustrates that people or businesses that believe they have received an unfair tax assessment should file their case as soon as possible. An experienced Rhode Island real estate and tax lawyer can help you understand the applicable statute of limitations and file your case far ahead of the time limit.

Have You Been Unfairly Taxed on Rhode Island Real Estate?

If you have received an unreasonable tax assessment on your Rhode Island property, it is important to act as soon as possible to avoid missing the applicable deadline to bring a claim. The experienced Rhode Island real estate attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP are here to assist you. Our attorneys understand the complex statutes of limitations that apply to various Rhode Island real estate and tax claims. We stay up-to-date on all changes to our state’s statutes and other legal developments that affect our client’s cases. If you have questions about a real estate or property tax issue, call our office at 401-300-4055 for a free initial consultation.

The appellant in the recently decided appeal is a man who owned property adjacent to the plaintiff’s land since inheriting it from his father. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the appellant had witnessed and been involved in the use of two parcels of land adjacent to his family’s plot, which was technically owned by the cemetery. Since the appellant could remember, his family used and maintained the two plots of land as if they were the rightful owners. Specifically, one of the land plots had been used for storing scrap metal and vehicles for nearly 30 years. The other portion of land had been maintained and landscaped by the appellant and his family for over ten years.

The owners of the cemetery filed an action in Rhode Island state court against the appellant in 2018, alleging that his use of the two plots of land was an unlawful trespass and requesting that the Court order the appellant to cease use of the property and remove the trespassing structures and other items. The appellant responded to the lawsuit, alleging that he and his family are entitled to ownership of the disputed parcels under the doctrine of adverse possession.

To prove a claim of ownership by adverse possession under Rhode Island law, a party must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use of the property for a period of at least ten years. At trial, the judge ruled that the appellant’s storage of scrap metal and landscaping of the grounds on the two disputed parcels was not sufficient to establish the actual, open, or notorious requirements of an adverse possession claim. Based on this ruling, the plaintiffs were granted an injunction for the appellants to stop using the property and remove any possessions therefrom.

The appellants raised an appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, where the court agreed that their use of the two parcels should meet the “actual, open, and notorious” requirements for an adverse possession claim. Based upon this finding, the high court remanded the case to the trial level to determine if the other requirements for adverse possession are met. Although the appellants have not yet proven all of the necessary elements to establish themselves as rightful owners of the disputed parcels, the recent high court ruling was a victory nonetheless.

Do You Have Questions About an Adverse Possession Issue?

Whether you are attempting to establish ownership of a piece of property by adverse possession or you are seeking to prevent another from doing so on your property, the time is now to start taking action to defend your position. Strict time and use requirements are applied to adverse possession claims, and small actions can make the difference between keeping or losing the title to your property. The qualified Rhode Island real estate attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP understand how adverse possession works in the state, and we can help you make decisions to strengthen the case that disputed property belongs to you. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

The defendants in the recently decided case include a shipyard owner, as well as the members of the local zoning board of the town of Warren, Rhode Island. According to the facts discussed in the court’s written ruling, the shipyard owner had applied to the town zoning board for a dimensional use variance, which would permit the shipyard to expand an existing building to increase the yard’s ability to fulfill new contracts for large industrial vessels. The town zoning board held public hearings on the shipyard owner’s request, where a neighboring property owner objected to the proposal. The neighboring property owner argued that the expansion was unnecessary, and would lead to increased traffic and noise around their own property.

The town council unanimously approved the shipyard owner’s application, finding that the requested permits were necessary for the owner’s business and that the objecting property owner’s contentions lacked merit. The adjacent property owner appealed the administrative ruling to the Superior Court, arguing that the zoning board’s decision was not made in accordance with the law. On appeal, the court described the factors that are used to justify the type of variance requested by the shipyard owner and found that the factors were properly considered by the zoning board. Based on the ruling by the Superior Court, the proposed building expansion will be allowed to proceed.

This case highlights the challenges property owners face when navigating Rhode Island’s complex zoning laws and why it is important to seek the advice of an experienced real estate lawyer prior to getting too far into the planning stage of any project.

Do You Have Questions About Constructing or Expanding an Existing Structure?

If you are considering building a new structure or expanding on an existing one, you may face hurdles in the form of zoning ordinances. Zoning ordinances are not absolute, and municipal zoning boards often grant variances and special use permits for non-compliant structures if the proper procedures are followed. If you are seeking help approaching a zoning board with a variance request, the experienced Rhode Island real estate attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP know how to help. We have successfully obtained permits for clients across the state for structures that would otherwise be forbidden. It’s important to have permission before constructing a noncompliant structure, and we can help you obtain this permission. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

The Respondent in the recently decided case purchased a property in Providence in 2009. As a result of unpaid taxes, the city of Providence took possession of the property and sold it at auction to the Petitioner. Acting within the standard procedure, the Petitioner filed an action to foreclose on the Respondent’s property rights in the Superior Court. Under state law, the Respondent had 20 days to answer the petition and make an offer to redeem the property. The Respondent filed an answer to the petition within the 20-day period, however, the answer contained no offer or request to redeem the property. Because the Respondent’s answer contained no offer to redeem the property, the Petitioner requested that the court enter a final order foreclosing on the Respondent’s right to redeem the property.

The state court rejected the petitioner’s request, instead allowing the Respondent to amend their answer to include a redemption offer. As a result of the ruling, a redemption figure was set, the Respondent began to take action to redeem the property, and the Petitioner appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court. On Appeal, the Petitioner argued that the statute setting the 20 day deadline for making an offer to redeem a property establishes a mandatory deadline, which cannot be extended by allowing a party to amend their court pleadings. The Supreme Court agreed with the Petitioner, ruling that the redemption statute must be strictly construed, and absolutely requires any person seeking to redeem the property to make an offer to redeem the property within the statutory timeframe. Because the Respondent failed to timely make an offer to redeem the property, the law must be applied as written, and the Respondent will not be able to regain ownership of the property.

How Should You Respond to a Rhode Island Foreclosure?

The laws of Rhode Island are designed to give property owners a fair opportunity to avoid losing their property in the event of a foreclosure. Although property owners are to be given a fair chance to retake possession of their property in the event of a foreclosure, the proper procedures must be followed, or the opportunity to redeem a property could be permanently sacrificed. If you have been notified of an ensuing foreclosure action on a property that you own, it is essential to have qualified legal counsel at your side to ensure that the proper procedures are followed in addressing the foreclosure. The qualified Rhode Island real estate attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP are experienced in handling tax sale and foreclosure issues, and we can help you ensure that your interests are protected while simultaneously challenging the substance of the claims against you. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case purchased a commercial property from the defendant in 2012. Shortly after completing the purchase, the plaintiff discovered that the property contained a significant amount of asbestos, which would need to be removed before he could continue using the property. The plaintiff sued the defendant in an attempt to recover damages. As part of the lawsuit, the plaintiff was required to disclose any experts that he would call to testify about the issues in the case. The plaintiff’s attorney failed to meet the deadline set by the court for expert disclosure, and the defendant attempted to have the case dismissed. The court allowed the plaintiff one more chance to disclose the experts he would use, after which the plaintiff only successfully disclosed one witness. The witness disclosed by the plaintiff was a general contractor who did not claim to be an expert at asbestos or asbestos abatement. On the defense’s motion, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendant on all of the asbestos-related claims.

The plaintiff appealed the lower court ruling to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, arguing that the proposed witness had sufficient knowledge of the relevant areas of expertise to offer an opinion on the issue. The high court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, ruling that the basic knowledge held by the plaintiff’s expert was not sufficient to meet the bar for the required expert testimony. The court found that the plaintiff’s witness was not a qualified expert, and the lower court had properly disposed of the plaintiff’s claims relating to the existence or removal of asbestos. As a result of the high court ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to recover any damages he has suffered b y addressing the undisclosed asbestos in the property he had purchased.

Making a case for breach of contract or fraud over a real estate claim can be a complicated and taxing prospect. Failure to properly prepare for a case may cause an aggrieved party to permanently forfeit their right to recover damages on a claim. If you or a loved one has questions about a lawsuit relating to a real estate transaction, it is important to retain skilled counsel early on in the process. A qualified Rhode Island real estate attorney will understand deadlines and witness requirements, allowing their client the best chance to prevail in the case. The experienced Rhode Island real estate attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo are diligent and pay attention to all of the details required to successfully build and argue a real estate case. Our lawyers represent clients in Rhode Island in most claims relating to real estate, including breach of contract and fraud claims. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

In Rhode Island, adverse possession is recognized under state law. To claim adverse possession in Rhode Island, the squatter must prove that they have continuously possessed the property openly, notoriously, and adversely for at least ten years and that they have paid all property taxes during that time. These requirements are designed to allow for a person who started off as a trespasser to demonstrate their ability and desire to productively possess and use a property that had been abandoned. The state has an interest in allowing squatter’s rights because the adverse possessor must pay taxes on the property, and often a property is improved significantly by an adverse possessor taking ownership.

In some situations, a property that appears abandoned may not be, and a rightful owner will be required to fight an adverse possession claim. A common example of this involves inherited property. When a large estate is divided, investment properties may be willed to heirs by a deceased benefactor. Properties that have fallen into disrepair can be easily ignored by the new owner, who may not have an immediate interest in addressing the maintenance or tax issues. Furthermore, an inherited property may be geographically distant from the new owner. If squatters move into a forgotten or ignored property, the owner may be risking losing the title to the property based on an adverse possession claim. There are methods to prevent an adverse possession claim from being viable.

It’s important to note that adverse possession can be a complex and controversial issue, and each case is evaluated on its own unique set of facts and circumstances. It’s always best to consult with a qualified real estate attorney in Rhode Island if you have questions about adverse possession or squatter’s rights. If you own a property that is being inhabited by trespassers, it is important to take action quickly to prevent a possible adverse possession claim from vesting and threatening your investment. If you have questions about a Rhode Island real estate issue, the qualified attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo can help you find answers quickly and take the appropriate action if needed. Our property lawyers have experience asserting our clients’ rights to contested property. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

Rhode Island’s zoning laws are relatively decentralized, giving towns and cities the ability to set their own requirements for certain types of construction in accordance with the municipalities’ general plans for development and preservation. There are several types of zoning classifications used by municipalities to encourage districts that include the desired type of development based on geography and other factors. Some of the types of zoning in the state include residential, commercial, downtown, waterfront, institutional, industrial, and public recreational properties.

Each of the zoning types may contain additional incentives and restrictions based on further subclassifications. A multi-family townhome may not be permitted on a property zoned for single-family occupancy. If a block is zoned for commercial use, that does not necessarily mean that a ten-story office building can be constructed. Rhode Island residents with questions about the zoning requirements of a certain piece of property can seek out legal advice from a qualified Rhode Island zoning attorney to answer their questions.

Once a proposed construction project meets zoning requirements, permits must be obtained for construction to begin. Permits are used to ensure that a project meets zoning and other construction requirements. Additionally, a permit will provide some confidence that no easements of other property interests exist on the proposed piece of property. When zoning laws are reasonable and permits are issued when requested, the system works well to encourage responsible development.

Unfortunately for many Rhode Island residents, the zoning and permit laws in the state do not always function as intended, and certain desirable projects will be rejected based on zoning or permit requirements. Municipal zoning boards and councils have the authority to issue special use permits to allow for non-compliant structures when the public interest is furthered; however, convincing municipal lawmakers and regulators to make exceptions can be difficult. Approaching a zoning board or municipal council with a variance request can be an intimidating process, with neighboring property owners possibly joining the proceeding to argue against a proposed project.

If you or a loved one is seeking to develop property or modify an existing structure, zoning changes and special permits may be needed for approval to be granted. The qualified Rhode Island real estate attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC have experience approaching municipal zoning boards and governing councils to permit our clients’ development and construction projects. With our guidance and support, you can ensure the best chances for your project’s approval and eventual completion. If you have questions about a Rhode Island property law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has addressed the question of how real estate agents and brokers should be held to account for false or misleading information that a buyer relied on to make a purchase. A unique factor in the Rhode Island real estate market involves the use of MLS systems to organize listings among brokers. MLSs, or Multiple Listing Services, are databases prepared and managed by one or more real estate brokers to conveniently organize listings. The information obtained from an MLS may have been entered incorrectly, and real estate agents have a duty to confirm that the information they are using from an MLS is accurate.

If an agent fails to disclose a known defect in a home or even fails to confirm that the information in an MLS listing is accurate, the agent could be held accountable in state courts for negligence or even fraud. Rhode Island General Laws Title 5, Section 20.8 details the rights and duties of licensed real estate agents in the state. Provisions of the code permit both sellers and their agents to be held financially responsible for information that was not disclosed to the buyer under the requirements of the section. Determining whether an agent had “actual knowledge” of a defect can be a difficult task. If a seller misleads their agent into publishing inaccurate information, the agent may be able to avoid liability for the mistruth; however, the seller may be on the hook for the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Participating in a real estate transaction can be a complicated and stressful endeavor. Although agent and legal fees may appear excessive to buyers or sellers seeking to perform a simple transaction, many problems can be avoided by seeking professional advice early in the process. If you are interested in buying or selling a residential or commercial property in Rhode Island, seeking competent legal advice from the start can ensure that your rights are protected and that your time and money are invested wisely.

If you are looking to buy or sell a home in Rhode Island, the experienced Rhode Island real estate attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP can help you protect your assets and ensure your disclosure obligations are met. Our qualified property lawyers know how to avoid many of the pitfalls that complicate real estate transactions. Our attorneys can help you maintain confidence that your transaction will proceed as intended. If you have questions about a Rhode Island real estate issue, call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a landowner who leased 10 acres of his Lincoln, RI property to a solar energy company for the construction of a solar energy project. After the project was completed, the assessed value of the plaintiff’s property increased by nearly $400,000, and the plaintiff’s tax burden increased significantly as a result. The plaintiff appealed the increased valuation to the municipal tax assessor and board of appeals, claiming that solar energy projects were tax-exempt under state law. The municipal defendants denied the plaintiff’s appeals, and the plaintiff brought the case to the Superior Court. The superior court affirmed the lower boards’ denial of the plaintiff’s claim. The court found that while the tax laws exempted solar energy projects from municipal taxation, the exemption does not apply to the property taxes for the land that the development was constructed upon.

The plaintiff appealed the Superior court ruling to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, where the lower court’s reasoning was upheld. The high court found that the law relied on by the plaintiff unambiguously mandated that only the tangible assets that form a renewable energy development are exempt from taxes. The plaintiff then pointed to a 2022 law that reclassified some real property containing renewable energy development as tax-exempt, however, the court was unable to apply the newer law, as the plaintiff’s claims arose under the law existing in 2019.

Although the land containing renewable energy developments may be taxed differently now under the 2022 law, the plaintiff’s claim still failed because of the law in effect at the time. Rhode Island landowners considering developing or leasing land for a renewable energy project should seek out accurate and up-to-date information on tax credits and discounts that may apply to their projects before signing a lease or breaking ground on development. A knowledgeable Rhode Island Real estate attorney can advise property owners as to the possible tax burdens they may face once a project is complete.

Is Renewable Energy Development on Your Land a Good Decision?

If you are considering leasing or developing your property for a renewable energy project, tax exemptions and credits can be a significant factor in deciding if the development is a good investment. The experienced Rhode Island real estate attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP understand how constantly evolving tax laws will affect our clients’ options and decisions. We stay up-to-date on all legal changes in the state, and we can help you ensure that your development project proceeds as expected. If you have questions about a Rhode Island easement issue, call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.