At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, we understand that condominium living and management can be complex and challenging. Disputes and issues often arise, leaving associations, property managers, and individual condominium owners feeling frustrated and uncertain about their rights and obligations. Our skilled attorneys have experience with Rhode Island Condominium Law in resolving these matters efficiently and effectively, advocating vigorously for our clients’ interests.

Are You Facing These Common Condominium Issues?

• Assessment Disputes: Condominium owners often face unexpected or improperly levied assessments. In Artesani v. Glenwood Park Condominium Ass’n, improper assessments were invalidated because the association failed to follow procedural requirements. If you believe your assessments are unfair, improperly imposed, or excessive, we can help protect your financial interests.
• Lease and Rental Restrictions: Associations sometimes struggle with enforcing rental restrictions, and unit owners frequently encounter pushback or misinterpretation of their rights. As demonstrated in Town Houses at Bonnet Shores Condominium Ass’n v. Langlois, clarity and strict adherence to condominium declarations are crucial. We help clients navigate and enforce leasing rules effectively.
• Governance and Board Authority Issues: Unclear or improperly amended governance documents can lead to significant conflicts. The ruling in Anton v. Houze highlights the need for precise compliance with statutory requirements for amendments. We offer expert guidance in reviewing, drafting, and amending condominium declarations to ensure compliance and clarity.
• Special Assessments and Essential Party Disputes: Special assessments, if not handled properly, can lead to major disputes and litigation. In Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Ass’n, the court emphasized that all affected parties must be properly represented in litigation challenging special assessments. Our attorneys ensure all legal actions and assessments are comprehensively managed to avoid costly errors and disputes.
• Enforcement of Rules and Regulations: Consistent enforcement of condominium rules is vital. We assist associations and property managers in effectively addressing violations, upholding community standards, and managing conflicts, including representation in enforcement actions and defense against allegations of improper enforcement.

Why Choose Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC?

If you are a condominium association, property manager, or individual unit owner dissatisfied with your current legal representation, Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can help. Our attorneys bring deep expertise in Rhode Island condominium law, combined with a proven track record of successful outcomes for our clients.

We focus on:

• Protecting your rights and financial interests
• Ensuring compliance with Rhode Island condominium law
• Resolving disputes efficiently through skilled negotiation or litigation
• Clear, open communication throughout your case

Don’t let condominium disputes disrupt your life or management responsibilities.

Contact Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC today 401-300-4055 to discuss how our experienced attorneys can support your condominium-related needs and provide the strong advocacy you deserve.

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows someone to acquire title to another person’s land by possessing it in a certain manner for a long period of time. In Rhode Island, the requirements for adverse possession are codified by statute. A person claiming adverse possession must prove actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use of the property, under a claim of right, for at least ten years. In other words, the use of the land must be obvious enough to put the true owner on notice and must continue uninterrupted for a decade without the true owner’s permission. The burden is on the claimant to prove all these elements by clear and convincing evidence, which is a high standard (sometimes called “strict proof”). If the claimant succeeds, “good and rightful title” vests in the adverse possessor after ten years of such possession. This is why adverse possession cases are so important for property owners – if you ignore a trespasser or an encroachment for too long, you could lose that portion of your property. Below, we discuss several recent Rhode Island court decisions that illustrate how these principles are applied, and what property owners can learn from them.

Case Analysis of Recent Rhode Island Decisions

Rhode Island courts have handled a number of boundary disputes and adverse possession claims in the past few years. Each case highlights different aspects of the law:

Clark v. Buttonwoods Beach Association (R.I. 2020)

Background: Judith and David Clark purchased a home in the Buttonwoods beach community of Warwick in 2009, believing that their purchase included a waterfront lot across the street. They treated the beachfront parcel as their own – at one point in 2011, the Clarks posted “Private Property” and “No Trespassing” signs on the waterfront lot. A neighborhood association (Buttonwoods Beach Association, or BBA) informed them that the waterfront lot actually belonged to the association, not the Clarks, and demanded the signs be removed. This dispute led the Clarks to file a lawsuit in 2014 to quiet title to the waterfront parcel, claiming they (and prior owners of their house) had acquired it by adverse possession.

Ruling and Reasoning: After a six-day trial, the Rhode Island Superior Court found that the Clarks had not proven adverse possession, and the state Supreme Court agreed. The evidence showed that there was no continuous ten-year period of exclusive, hostile use of the waterfront lot. In fact, the prior owners of the Clarks’ property had used that beach parcel in ways that acknowledged the association’s ownership: one owner had even installed steps to the beach for the benefit of all neighbors (not an exclusive or hostile act), and another owner sought permission from the association before making improvements on the lot. The BBA also filed a formal notice of interruption in the land records to dispute any adverse possession claim on that lot. Given these facts, the courts held the Clarks could not tack together a hostile 10-year period of possession. Legal implications: For property owners, the Clark case shows that if you openly allow others to use your land (or if a neighbor uses it with your permission), they cannot claim it adversely – permission and community use are the opposite of the “hostile” and “exclusive” possession required. Conversely, if you’re a property owner facing a potential adverse possession claim, you have tools to protect your ownership. Rhode Island law lets an owner break the adverse possession period by (1) filing a quiet title action, (2) recording a notice disputing the adverse claim, or (3) physically ousting the intruder or otherwise significantly interrupting their use – the BBA’s actions in Clark are a textbook example of successfully preventing an adverse possession.

Coscina v. DiPetrillo (R.I. 2018)

Background: This case involved a rural boundary dispute in Glocester. The plaintiffs, William and Cheryl Coscina, had owned their property since 1979 and treated two adjacent pasture areas (nicknamed “Cheryl’s Front Pasture” and “Cheryl’s Back Pasture”) as their own for decades. They kept farm animals on one pasture, mowed and cleared brush in the other, and even placed fence posts and maintained an old stone wall along what they believed was the boundary. In 2013, the neighboring property was purchased by the DiPetrillo family, who disputed the boundary and asserted that the pastures were on their side of the line. The Coscinas filed suit claiming ownership of the pastures by adverse possession (over 36 years of open, continuous, and hostile use).

Ruling and Reasoning: Uniquely, the Coscinas initially won summary judgment in the trial court – meaning the judge decided in their favor without a full trial, on the basis of affidavits, old surveys, and photos. However, the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated that judgment and sent the case back for a full trial. The Supreme Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact about the exact boundaries of the land the Coscinas claimed, which made summary judgment inappropriate. In particular, the evidence showed inconsistencies: the Coscinas’ descriptions of the “back pasture” boundaries had changed over time and the survey maps were not clear or consistent. The hearing judge himself noted uncertainty about where the pasture boundary actually lay. The Supreme Court emphasized that adverse possession cases are very fact-intensive and usually require a trial to resolve conflicts in evidence. In fact, the Court remarked that it had never upheld a summary judgment in an adverse possession claim, given the need for clear proof of each element and a definite area of land in dispute. Legal implications: The Coscina case teaches that anyone claiming adverse possession must definitively identify the land they’ve been occupying. Shifting theories or fuzzy boundaries can doom a claim. For landowners, if a neighbor’s adverse claim seems to expand or change over time, that inconsistency can be used to defeat the claim. More broadly, both claimants and owners should expect these cases to hinge on detailed factual evidence – old surveys, photographs, witness testimony about who used the land and how, etc. – which is why courts usually require a full trial to weigh all that evidence rather than a quick judgment.

Mitola v. Providence Public Buildings Authority (R.I. 2022)

Background: Mitola is a bit different from the typical neighbor-vs-neighbor boundary fight. It involved a property owner (the Mitola family) dealing with a government authority in a partial eminent domain situation. The Providence Public Buildings Authority had taken an easement or partial interest in the Mitolas’ property for a public project, and under Rhode Island law the Mitolas had the right to demand that the authority purchase their entire property (not just the easement) in fee simple. The Mitolas filed a petition to compel the Authority to purchase the property in full, but they did so almost four years after the taking. The Superior Court denied their petition – possibly viewing the delay as missing a deadline – and the Mitolas appealed.

Ruling and Reasoning: The Rhode Island Supreme Court sided with the property owners (the Mitolas) and vacated the lower court’s decision, holding that the Mitolas’ request was timely and should be honored. The Court noted that the statutory obligation of the Public Buildings Authority to buy the property was time-limited, but the Mitolas had met that time limit by filing when they did. In evaluating the four-year delay, the Court found it was not an inexcusable delay and it did not significantly prejudice the Authority’s interests. Importantly, the Supreme Court analogized to other areas of law to guide its decision – for example, they referenced the ten-year period for adverse possession claims as a point of comparison. Ultimately, the case was sent back (remanded) for further proceedings, with the direction that if the Authority must take the property in fee, the value should be calculated as of the time of the original taking (so the owners get fair value as of that date). Legal implications: While Mitola isn’t an adverse possession case, it highlights a common theme in property law: time matters, but fairness matters too. Property owners need to be aware of time limits on asserting their rights (whether it’s a statute of limitations, or in this case a statutory option to force a purchase). The case shows Rhode Island courts are willing to interpret those time limits in a reasonable way – not punishing an owner for a moderate delay if the law doesn’t strictly forbid it. For someone facing a boundary or land dispute, the lesson is to act diligently, but know that courts will look at the specific circumstances. (It’s also a reminder that adverse possession itself requires a minimum of 10 years – so our legal system expects owners to periodically check on and protect their property within that timeframe.)

O’Keefe v. York (R.I. 2024)

Background: This dispute arose in a private residential compound in South Kingstown, where six neighbors shared a private roadway ending in a cul-de-sac. Each homeowner held an undivided one-sixth interest in the private road and a mutual easement to use it, as per the subdivision plan. The plaintiffs, Merlyn and Mary Ellen O’Keefe, live at the end of the road by the cul-de-sac. Over the years, they became frustrated with how some neighbors were using the roadway – for example, certain neighbors placed bushes, a trailer, or other objects on or near the road edges, and at one point a gate was across part of the road. The O’Keefes claimed these objects interfered with their use of the road and effectively “ousted” them from full enjoyment of the cul-de-sac. They sued their neighbors for trespass and also claimed adverse possession of the entire cul-de-sac area (seeking to own it exclusively). After a bench trial, however, the court ruled in favor of the neighbors, and the O’Keefes appealed.

Ruling and Reasoning: The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, again ruling against the O’Keefes. The key issue was that the road was owned in common – all six lot owners had equal rights to use it. The O’Keefes could not prove that they had excluded their co-owner neighbors from the cul-de-sac in a way that was exclusive and hostile for ten years. In fact, the evidence showed the various items (like the bushes, vehicles, and farm equipment) were mostly transient (“come and go”) and did not block the O’Keefes’ own access in any permanent way. Crucially, one cannot usually claim adverse possession against a co-tenant or co-owner without a clear ouster. The Supreme Court noted there was no evidence the neighbors’ actions ever deprived the O’Keefes of their equal right to use the platted road, so the O’Keefes were not entitled to an injunction, and their adverse possession claim failed because they never ousted the others. In legal terms, you can’t adversely possess property that you already own jointly with others unless you openly exclude your co-owners and claim sole ownership, which did not happen here. Legal implications: The O’Keefe case is a caution to homeowners in private developments or anyone sharing rights to land: you cannot unilaterally take over a common area unless you meet a very high bar of excluding others for the statutory period. Minor inconveniences or sporadic blockages by a neighbor will not amount to an ouster. For property owners dealing with shared driveways or private road easements, the case affirms that all parties retain their rights unless someone clearly and continuously shuts everyone else out (which is rare). It also shows that courts will protect the original intended property rights structure (in this case, shared ownership of the road) absent very strong evidence to change it.

Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy (R.I. 2023)

Background: This case was successfully argued in the Supreme Court by Partner Ryan Capalbo and illustrates how even longstanding institutions can run into adverse possession issues. The Union Cemetery Burial Society owned a historic cemetery in North Smithfield. Adjacent to the cemetery lived the Foisy family (neighbors). Over many years, the Foisys had gradually been using two small strips of land that were actually part of the cemetery’s property – one on the northern edge of the cemetery and one on the eastern edge. These uses might have included mowing the grass, extending their yard or fence, or other typical acts of ownership into the edge of the cemetery’s lot. The Cemetery Society eventually filed a lawsuit accusing the Foisys of trespassing on cemetery land and sought an injunction to stop any encroachment. In response, the Foisys filed a counterclaim asserting adverse possession of those northern and eastern strips of land. The case went to a bench trial, where the trial justice ruled in favor of the Cemetery (rejecting the adverse possession claim). The Foisys appealed.

Ruling and Reasoning: The Rhode Island Supreme Court examined the evidence and ended up siding with the neighbors (Foisys) on the adverse possession question. The Supreme Court held that the Foisys had indeed demonstrated the required elements of adverse possession for both disputed areas. The Court found the neighbors had made actual, open, continuous use of the northern encroachment strip for well over ten years, and that their use of the eastern encroachment strip was also sufficiently open and notorious to meet the adverse possession standard. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court must have determined that the Foisys’ use was hostile (without permission) and exclusive as well, although the headnote highlights the “open and notorious” element particularly. Essentially, the Foisys treated those edge strips as part of their own backyard, in a manner visible enough that the Cemetery Society either knew or should have known about it – and yet the Society took no action for decades. Because the Foisys proved their case with clear and convincing evidence (years of open use, maintenance, perhaps structures or fencing, etc.), the Supreme Court vacated the judgment for the Cemetery and remanded the case – effectively clearing the way for the Foisys to be declared owners of those strips. Legal implications: Union Cemetery v. Foisy is a prime example that no landowner is immune from adverse possession claims, not even a cemetery. If you own property (whether it’s a church, a business, or just undeveloped land), you need to monitor your boundaries. The Cemetery Society’s inaction for a long period allowed the neighbors’ use to ripen into ownership. For Rhode Island property owners, the takeaway is to regularly inspect your property lines and respond to encroachments promptly (post signs, send letters, grant written permission, or take legal action to interrupt adverse use). For those who believe they have gained rights to a slice of a neighbor’s land, this case shows that courts will enforce adverse possession when the evidence is strong – even against sympathetic parties like a cemetery. The elements (open, notorious, hostile, continuous, exclusive use for 10+ years) are the great equalizer; if they are proved, the claimant can prevail regardless of who the record owner is. To review the Foisy Decision, click HERE.

Key Legal Takeaways for Boundary Disputes

Each of these cases, despite differing facts, reinforces some common themes in Rhode Island adverse possession law. Property owners and those embroiled in boundary disputes should keep in mind the following key points:

• All Elements Are Required: To succeed in adverse possession, a claimant must satisfy every element: possession must be actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive for at least ten years. Failing any one of these will doom the claim. And the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish each element by clear and convincing evidence. Courts will not assume anything in favor of the adverse possessor – you have to present strong proof of long-term acts of ownership.
• “Open and Notorious” – Visibility is Crucial: Open and notorious use means the use of the land is obvious enough to be noticed – the law asks whether the claimant used the property the way an actual owner would, in a manner that is likely to attract attention and put the world on notice of the claim. In practice, this could mean maintaining the lawn, fencing in the land, building on it, or posting signs. If the true owner could be reasonably expected to know someone else is occupying their land (as was the case in Union Cemetery v. Foisy, where the neighbors’ encroachments were visible), the “open and notorious” element is met. If the use is hidden or sporadic, it fails this requirement.
• Hostile Use (Claim of Right): “Hostile” in adverse possession doesn’t imply ill will; it means the use is without the true owner’s permission and contrary to the owner’s rights. Rhode Island law treats using property under a claim of right as equivalent to hostility – basically, acting as if you own it. The possessor must occupy the land as a trespasser would – without consent, and in a way inconsistent with the owner’s title. If you have the owner’s permission or are using the land in a subordinate way (for example, with a lease or a neighborly understanding), then your use is not hostile and won’t count toward adverse possession. In Clark v. BBA, the prior owner’s act of asking permission and sharing the space with others showed a lack of hostility, defeating the claim.
• Exclusive and Continuous Possession: Adverse possession requires that you possess the property as if you are the sole owner. The use must be exclusive, meaning you are not sharing control with the true owner or the general public. If both you and the true owner (or others) are regularly using the land, your possession isn’t exclusive. For example, in O’Keefe v. York, the O’Keefes could not exclude their neighbors from the cul-de-sac, so they lacked exclusivity. Possession must also be continuous for 10 years – you can’t treat the land as yours for a few months at a time and then abandon it. However, Rhode Island does allow “tacking” of possession between successive occupants if there is privity (for instance, if a prior owner of your property also used the neighbor’s land, you might add your time to theirs to reach 10 years). The key is that the occupancy, through one owner or a chain, remains unbroken for the statutory period. Any significant interruption – such as the true owner reclaiming the land or legally ejecting the possessor – will reset the clock.
• Co-Owners and Common Property: You generally cannot claim adverse possession against a co-owner or in a property you jointly own, unless you perform an “ouster.” An ouster means you openly act to exclude your co-owner and hold the property solely against them. Short of that, each co-owner is deemed to be in possession, so one cannot adversely possess against the other. The O’Keefe case highlights this principle: because the road was owned by all the neighbors, one family could not snatch ownership from the others without proof that they completely shut out the others for 10 years, which they failed to do. Similarly, you cannot adversely possess public land in Rhode Island (the law typically exempts government-owned property from adverse claims for policy reasons, though this wasn’t an issue in the cases above).
• Importance of Clear Boundaries and Evidence: A recurring theme is the need for clarity in what land is being claimed. If you are claiming a portion of property, you should be able to clearly delineate the boundaries of that portion. Courts frown upon vague or shifting claims (as seen in Coscina, where the lack of a consistent boundary description helped sink the summary judgment). Surveys, markers, fences, or longstanding physical demarcations (like a stone wall or tree line recognized as a boundary) are crucial evidence in boundary disputes. The stronger your evidence (old photographs, testimony of neighbors, deeds or maps, etc.), the more likely you are to meet the clear and convincing standard. Likewise, property owners defending against a claim should gather evidence showing the claimant’s use was not as exclusive or continuous as claimed (or that it was done with permission or occasional interruption).
• Courts Favor Factual Truth – Be Prepared for Trial: Adverse possession cases are highly fact-specific, and Rhode Island courts often require a full trial to sort out the truth. It is rare for a court to grant summary judgment (a quick win) in these disputes because there are usually conflicting accounts of how the land was used. As a property owner, you should be ready to present a strong factual narrative of your stewardship of the land (or lack thereof). As a claimant, you should be ready to detail every year of your possession and how you acted as owner. In either case, having professional surveys done and keeping records can make a big difference.
• How to Protect Your Property (as the Record Owner): If you own land, don’t “sleep on your rights.” The law rewards vigilant owners. The Clark case showed that record owners can defeat an adverse possessor by taking formal action within the ten-year window. In Rhode Island, you can serve and record a notice of intent to dispute adverse possession in the land evidence records, which is an inexpensive way to publicly announce you’re not acquiescing to any trespass. You can also bring a quiet title lawsuit proactively if a boundary is in dispute, or simply ask the encroaching neighbor for a written agreement or license (which turns their use into permissive use, nullifying hostility). Even a polite letter or an entry onto the land to reassert ownership (e.g., mowing the area yourself or putting up “No Trespassing” signs) can serve as an interruption of someone else’s claim. The bottom line: property owners should periodically inspect their land, respond to encroachments, and keep documentation of their efforts to maintain control. Ten years can pass faster than you think, and once that time is up, the “squatter” can gain legal title, as the law will favor the person who showed actual care and use of the land.
• Lessons for Claimants (Would-Be Adverse Possessors): If you believe you have a valid adverse possession claim (for instance, your driveway or shed is discovered to encroach on a neighbor’s lot, or you’ve been maintaining a strip of land beyond your deeded boundary for decades), know that you’ll need to meet all the criteria above. That means your use of that land should have been obvious, exclusive, and without the true owner’s consent for at least 10 years. It’s often wise to consult a lawyer and get a survey done to confirm the extent of the land in question. Sometimes, a friendly negotiation can resolve a boundary issue without going to court (e.g., the neighbor might sell or agree to adjust the boundary). But if not, Rhode Island courts will look at the history very closely. Cases like Union Cemetery v. Foisy demonstrate that long-term neighbors can prevail in court, but it requires a compelling showing of continuous use. Also, remember that filing a lawsuit can prompt a counter-action by the record owner (if they haven’t already filed a notice of interruption or quiet title). Each situation is unique, so weighing the cost and benefit of legal action is important.

In sum, the doctrine of adverse possession in Rhode Island strikes a balance between rewarding those who use and care for land and protecting the rights of true owners. The recent cases above illustrate that courts demand thorough proof and will examine the conduct of both parties over many years. For property owners, the clear message is: stay attentive to your property boundaries. And for those seeking to perfect title to land via adverse possession, be prepared to demonstrate an unbroken, conspicuous claim to the property in question.

Why Hire Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC for Adverse Possession and Boundary Disputes

Facing a boundary dispute or an adverse possession claim can be daunting. These cases involve complex legal standards and detailed factual records, as we’ve seen from the Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions above. This is where Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can make all the difference. Our firm has extensive experience in real estate litigation, including adverse possession and quiet title actions. In fact, our partner Ryan Capalbo argued the Union Cemetery v. Foisy case before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, one of the very decisions discussed in this blog. We have first-hand expertise in how Rhode Island courts analyze adverse possession elements – and we know what it takes to build a successful case (or defense).

When you hire Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC for a property dispute, you get a team that will thoroughly investigate the history of your land. We work with professional surveyors, review title records and maps, and gather witness statements to piece together the full picture of your boundary issue. Whether you are a landowner trying to prevent a neighbor from encroaching, or you are someone who has openly used a piece of land for years and needs to secure your rights, our attorneys will guide you through the process step by step. We can advise on effective strategies such as filing the proper notices, negotiating boundary line agreements, or, if necessary, aggressively representing you in court to assert or defend your property rights.

Our proven track record – including high-profile cases like Union Cemetery, as well as numerous quiet title and easement disputes – shows our commitment to protecting our clients’ interests. We understand that for many people, their home or land is their most valuable asset, and even a small piece of property is worth fighting for. We pride ourselves on offering personalized attention, clear communication, and a practical approach to resolve disputes as efficiently as possible. Often, just having a respected law firm by your side can encourage a reasonable settlement with your neighbor. But if litigation is unavoidable, we will not hesitate to use our litigation experience to advocate for you.

Don’t wait until a boundary issue becomes a crisis. If you suspect a property line problem or have been threatened with an adverse possession claim, reach out to Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC. Early legal guidance can save you time, money, and the risk of losing property rights. Our team is ready to help landowners throughout Rhode Island understand their rights and options. Contact us today for a consultation 401-300-4055, and let us put our knowledge of Rhode Island property law to work for you. With Bilodeau Capalbo on your side, you can navigate adverse possession and boundary disputes with confidence and protect what’s rightfully yours.

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.

Challenging Municipal Activity with Nuisance Claims Can Be an Uphill Battle

Although courts are mandated to be neutral in all of the controversies they hear, it’s not unreasonable to observe that claims by private property owners against government entities are generally harder to pursue than claims against other defendants. Procedural and statutory rules and laws favor states and municipalities in property disputes. Because of this challenge, anyone seeking to challenge a nuisance on their property caused by the government must be extra careful and diligent in pursuing their claim. The qualified Rhode Island real estate attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo know how to hold states and municipalities accountable for nuisances they cause. With our help, your claim will have the greatest chance for success. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Rhode Island real estate attorney by calling 401-300-4055.

Why Newlyweds Need to Plan Their Estates

Why should newlyweds care about estate planning? Because everyone – young or old, married or single – needs to protect themselves and those they love.

Unfortunately, many couples spend more time planning their honeymoon than they do planning the best way to protect each other.

What Happens Without an Estate Plan?

This fallout of becoming incapacitated or dying without an estate plan is serious, expensive, and painful. It often causes financial ruin and family discord, lasting for generations.

Without an estate plan:

• You will leave your spouse and the rest of your family in the dark – they won’t know what you would want to happen if you became incapacitated or died. This often leads to family fights as each individual champions for what she thinks you would have wanted.
• You’ll leave a huge burden on your loved ones to make tough decisions about medical heroics and the withdrawal of life support.
• The court or state law, not you, will decide who makes health care decisions if you are unable to make those decisions yourself.
• A judge, not you, will decide who raises your children.
• The court can lock down your assets so even your spouse has to get court permission before making a financial move.
• Any assets you leave to loved ones can be taken by their divorcing spouses, bankruptcy creditors, medical crisis creditors, predators, and frivolous lawsuits.
• You may accidentally disinherit your spouse and your children.
• Your beloved pet could end up in a shelter or euthanized.

What Should You Do?

We invite you and your new spouse to contact Andrew Bilodeau to set up a meeting. We’ll walk you through how to protect each other and those you love; how to protect your beloved pets; and how to protect your assets and make things easier for you and your families. Call now 401-300-4055; we look forward to hearing from you.