Rhode Island divorce and family law continues to evolve through decisions of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, even when the underlying statutes remain substantially unchanged. Recent appellate decisions have addressed important questions involving the valuation and division of marital property, ownership interests in closely held businesses, inherited assets, retirement benefits, child custody, relocation, child support, and the enforcement of marital settlement agreements.

For individuals considering divorce, these decisions demonstrate that the outcome of a case often depends upon detailed financial evidence, the language of governing agreements, the classification of property, and the particular circumstances presented to the Family Court.

For business owners, professionals, executives, and individuals with substantial marital estates, recent developments are particularly significant. Decisions concerning shareholder agreements, stock options, restricted stock units, and inherited property illustrate how legal and financial considerations intersect in divorce litigation.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, our attorneys represent clients in contested and uncontested divorce proceedings, complex equitable distribution disputes, child custody matters, support proceedings, and post-divorce litigation.

This article examines important Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions from 2023 through 2026 and explains their significance for individuals and families navigating divorce and related proceedings.

For information about legal representation, visit our Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers page.

Equitable Distribution of Marital Property in Rhode Island

Rhode Island follows the principle of equitable distribution under R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16.1.

Unlike an automatic equal division of marital assets, equitable distribution requires the Family Court to identify property subject to assignment, consider the statutory factors, and determine an equitable allocation based upon the circumstances.

The statutory analysis may involve the duration of the marriage, the parties’ respective financial and nonfinancial contributions, their conduct, earning capacities, economic circumstances, and other legally relevant considerations.

Disputes frequently arise concerning whether particular assets are marital property, how they should be valued, and whether certain circumstances justify an unequal distribution.

Recent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions have addressed these issues in the context of closely held businesses, retirement benefits, inherited property, trusts, and employment-related equity compensation.

Learn more about our Rhode Island Property Division Practice.

Business Valuation in Divorce: Cronan v. Cronan

Business ownership interests can present substantial valuation disputes during divorce proceedings.

A spouse may own shares in a closely held corporation, a membership interest in a limited liability company, a professional practice, or another enterprise whose value is not readily established through publicly available market information.

In Cronan v. Cronan, 307 A.3d 183 (R.I. 2024), the Rhode Island Supreme Court considered the valuation of a spouse’s ownership interest in a closely held medical practice.

The Family Court valued the interest at $366,200 based upon the terms of a binding shareholder agreement rather than adopting the substantially higher valuation advanced by the opposing party.

The Supreme Court affirmed that determination in light of the contractual provisions and evidence presented.

The decision illustrates that shareholder agreements, operating agreements, and contractual buyout restrictions may be important evidence when valuing business interests in divorce.

However, Cronan does not establish that every contractual buyout price automatically determines the value of a business interest in every divorce proceeding.

The valuation analysis depends upon the governing agreements, the circumstances of ownership, the evidence presented, and the applicable equitable distribution principles.

Practical Implications for Business Owners

Business owners contemplating marriage or divorce should understand how existing ownership agreements may affect the valuation of their interests.

Relevant documents may include shareholder agreements, operating agreements, partnership agreements, buy-sell provisions, financial statements, and other contractual arrangements affecting ownership and transfer rights.

Business valuations may also involve disputed goodwill, earnings, liabilities, capitalization, and the opinions of valuation experts.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC combines experience in family law and Business Law when representing clients in disputes involving closely held companies and substantial business interests.

Stock Options, Restricted Stock Units and Valuation Dates: Hogan v. Wong

Employment-related equity compensation can create significant disputes in high-net-worth divorce proceedings.

Stock options, restricted stock units (RSUs), deferred compensation, and performance-based equity awards may have substantial value but remain subject to vesting schedules, employment conditions, transfer restrictions, and future market fluctuations.

In Hogan v. Wong, 360 A.3d 55 (R.I. 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed the classification, valuation, and assignment of stock options and restricted stock units arising from employment compensation.

The Court affirmed the Family Court’s use of the parties’ separation date to value certain vested equity awards rather than the date of trial, based upon compelling circumstances established in the case.

The Supreme Court also upheld the assignment of unvested stock options and RSUs to the employee spouse under the particular circumstances presented.

The decision is important because the date used to value employment-related equity compensation can materially affect the amount included in the marital estate.

Where the underlying company’s stock price changes significantly between separation and trial, the choice of valuation date may produce substantially different results.

Nevertheless, Hogan does not establish that unvested stock options and RSUs are automatically excluded from equitable distribution or that separation-date valuation is appropriate in every case.

Practical Implications for Executives and Professionals

Individuals receiving stock options, RSUs, restricted shares, or other equity compensation should carefully examine the terms of their employment and compensation agreements.

Important considerations may include when the awards were granted, when they vest, whether continued employment is required, the purpose of the compensation, and the evidence supporting the proposed valuation date.

These disputes may require financial experts familiar with equity compensation, valuation methodology, and the treatment of contingent employment benefits.

Learn more about our High Net Worth Divorce Practice.

Retirement Benefits and Financial Disclosure: DiDonato v. DiDonato

Retirement benefits frequently represent a substantial portion of a marital estate.

Pensions, retirement accounts, deferred compensation plans, and other employment-related benefits may raise questions concerning classification, valuation, timing, and implementation of property division awards.

In DiDonato v. DiDonato, 295 A.3d 828 (R.I. 2023), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed the treatment of pension benefits accumulated during marriage, the classification of property held in trust, and the consequences of inadequate financial disclosure.

The decision illustrates that pension interests earned during marriage may be subject to equitable distribution and that a spouse’s placement of marital assets into a trust does not necessarily remove those assets from the marital estate.

The Court also upheld a substantial monetary sanction arising from repeated failures to disclose financial holdings during the proceedings.

Financial Disclosure and Concealed Assets

Divorce proceedings require careful identification and evaluation of the parties’ financial circumstances.

Disputes may involve undisclosed bank accounts, investment holdings, business interests, trusts, retirement assets, and financial transactions.

Where substantial assets are involved, financial investigation may require analysis of tax returns, bank statements, investment records, ownership agreements, and other documentation.

DiDonato demonstrates the importance of complying with financial disclosure obligations and the potential consequences of failing to provide complete and accurate financial information.

Our attorneys represent clients in divorce litigation involving disputed financial disclosures, trusts, business interests, and allegations of concealed marital assets.

Pension Division After Divorce: Codere-Wilson v. Wilson

Disputes concerning retirement benefits may continue long after the entry of a final divorce judgment.

A marital settlement agreement may establish rights to pension benefits that require additional documentation or judicial proceedings before the division can be implemented.

In Codere-Wilson v. Wilson, 359 A.3d 76 (R.I. 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed the enforcement of pension division provisions contained in a marital settlement agreement incorporated but not merged into a divorce judgment.

The Court permitted enforcement of the agreement through a subsequent qualified domestic relations order.

The decision illustrates the distinction between enforcing an existing contractual obligation and attempting to modify a final property assignment.

Why the Language of a Settlement Agreement Matters

Retirement provisions should identify the benefits subject to division and address the terms necessary to implement the parties’ agreement.

Disputes may arise concerning the interpretation of settlement language, survivor benefits, pension commencement dates, and the preparation of domestic relations orders.

The decision underscores the importance of careful drafting and review of marital settlement agreements, particularly where substantial retirement benefits are involved.

Learn more about our Property Division and Retirement Asset Representation.

Inherited Property and Transmutation: Constantino v. Orban

Inherited property and assets acquired before marriage frequently create disputes concerning whether the property is subject to equitable distribution.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16.1 addresses the treatment of certain property acquired by gift or inheritance.

However, disputes may arise when inherited property is transferred into joint ownership, funds are commingled, marital resources are used in connection with separately owned property, or one spouse contends that the owner intended to convert the property into marital property.

In Constantino v. Orban, 359 A.3d 822 (R.I. 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court considered whether foreign real estate acquired through inheritance or gift had become marital property.

The Court affirmed the determination that the disputed properties remained nonmarital where the evidence did not establish an objectively manifested intention to convert them into marital property.

The litigation involved arguments concerning joint tax reporting and the payment of certain expenses associated with the properties.

Protecting Inherited and Premarital Property

The classification of inherited property depends upon the applicable statutory provisions and evidence concerning ownership, financial transactions, and the parties’ conduct.

Joint ownership, commingling of funds, and contributions of marital resources may create questions concerning the treatment of previously separate property.

However, these circumstances do not eliminate the need for a legally supported analysis of whether an intention to convert the property has been objectively manifested.

Individuals seeking to protect inherited or premarital property should maintain accurate records concerning acquisition, ownership, financial transfers, and subsequent treatment.

Our attorneys represent clients in disputes concerning inherited property, premarital assets, real estate, and the classification of property in divorce.

Alimony and Financial Independence: Cronan v. Cronan

Alimony is governed by R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16.

Rhode Island alimony is generally rehabilitative in purpose, although the statute permits other arrangements under appropriate circumstances.

Relevant considerations may include the duration of the marriage, financial resources, earning capacity, employment history, health, age, and the financial consequences of equitable distribution.

In addition to addressing business valuation, Cronan v. Cronan, 307 A.3d 183 (R.I. 2024), considered an alimony determination.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s denial of alimony based upon the evidence concerning the requesting spouse’s financial circumstances and ability to support herself.

The decision illustrates the importance of presenting evidence concerning financial need, earning capacity, available resources, and the statutory considerations governing alimony.

Alimony determinations depend upon the facts of each case. Neither the existence of a substantial marital estate nor a disparity in income automatically determines whether alimony will be awarded.

Learn more about our Rhode Island Spousal Support and Alimony Practice.

Child Custody and Required Judicial Findings: Conway v. Orenberg

Child custody disputes require consideration of the child’s best interests.

Rhode Island courts evaluate the evidence concerning parental relationships, the child’s needs, stability, proposed living arrangements, and other relevant circumstances.

In Conway v. Orenberg, 349 A.3d 250 (R.I. 2026), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed the adequacy of the Family Court’s findings supporting a primary placement determination.

The Court vacated the challenged placement order because the record did not contain sufficient findings supporting the necessary best-interests analysis.

The decision illustrates the importance of developing a factual record that permits meaningful judicial consideration and appellate review.

A custody determination must be grounded in the evidence and the applicable legal standards rather than an unsupported assumption about the arrangement that should govern.

Practical Implications for Parents

Parents involved in contested custody proceedings should understand the importance of evidence concerning their children’s needs, living arrangements, educational circumstances, parental responsibilities, and relationships with each parent.

Our attorneys represent parents in custody negotiations, contested hearings, and proceedings involving the modification or enforcement of parenting arrangements.

Learn more about our Child Custody and Visitation Practice.

Child Relocation and Interstate Custody Disputes

Relocation disputes arise when a parent seeks to move with a child to another city, state, or country.

These proceedings can present difficult questions concerning the child’s best interests, the reasons for relocation, the relationship with each parent, educational opportunities, family support, and the feasibility of maintaining meaningful parenting time.

Rhode Island courts consider the relevant factors established in Dupre v. Dupre, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004).

Recent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that relocation determinations depend upon the evidence and particular circumstances.

In Dawson v. Ojeda, 303 A.3d 569 (R.I. 2023), the Supreme Court affirmed a relocation determination involving a move to Massachusetts.

In Mendez v. Arancibia, 336 A.3d 60 (R.I. 2025), the Court addressed an international relocation involving Bolivia.

Conversely, in Leon v. Krikorian, 271 A.3d 985 (R.I. 2022), the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a requested relocation to Florida.

These decisions illustrate that relocation is neither automatically permitted nor automatically prohibited.

The controlling consideration remains the child’s best interests as evaluated under the applicable legal framework.

Interstate and international custody disputes may also involve jurisdictional questions requiring analysis of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and other applicable laws.

Child Support, Business Income and Earning Capacity: Mezini v. Mezini

Child support determinations involving business owners and self-employed parents can present complicated financial questions.

A business owner may receive compensation through salary, distributions, guaranteed payments, bonuses, or other financial arrangements.

Disputes may concern the parent’s actual earnings, earning capacity, business expenses, and whether reported income accurately reflects the parent’s financial circumstances.

In Mezini v. Mezini, 268 A.3d 1171 (R.I. 2022), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed a child support determination involving disputed income and earning capacity.

The Court affirmed the Family Court’s determination based upon financial evidence and credibility findings concerning the husband’s earnings and business-related financial circumstances.

The decision illustrates that child support determinations may require examination of financial records and evidence of earning capacity rather than reliance solely upon a parent’s characterization of reported income.

Business tax returns, financial statements, payroll records, distributions, and other documents may become important evidence in these disputes.

Child Support Worksheets and Attorney Authority: Conway v. Orenberg

Conway v. Orenberg, 349 A.3d 250 (R.I. 2026), also addressed a child support guideline worksheet signed by counsel and entered as an order of the Family Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision illustrates the importance of reviewing proposed support calculations and understanding the legal consequences of documents submitted to the court.

Parents should carefully review income figures, applicable deductions, expenses, and other information used in calculating support.

The case also highlights the significance of attorney authority and the procedural circumstances surrounding the entry of support orders.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16.2 governs child support determinations and provides the statutory framework for applying the Rhode Island child support guidelines.

Our attorneys represent parents seeking, contesting, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations.

Learn more about our Rhode Island Child Support Practice.

Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements in Rhode Island

Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements may have significant consequences for the division of property and financial obligations in divorce proceedings.

Rhode Island’s Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 15-17, governs premarital agreements.

Disputes may concern enforceability, financial disclosure, execution circumstances, interpretation of contractual provisions, and the treatment of property under the agreement.

Postnuptial agreements may present different contractual and legal questions.

In McCollum v. McCollum, 287 A.3d 26 (R.I. 2023), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed issues involving a postnuptial agreement, attorney’s fees, and the relationship between contractual choice-of-law provisions and Rhode Island divorce proceedings.

The decision illustrates the importance of evaluating marital agreements in conjunction with the applicable domestic relations law and procedural requirements.

Our attorneys assist clients in reviewing, negotiating, preparing, and litigating disputes concerning prenuptial and postnuptial agreements.

What These Rhode Island Supreme Court Decisions Mean for Divorcing Spouses

The recent decisions of the Rhode Island Supreme Court illustrate several recurring principles in divorce and family law litigation.

First, contractual documents can significantly affect financial outcomes. Shareholder agreements, operating agreements, marital settlement agreements, and employment compensation plans may become important evidence in determining the value and treatment of disputed assets.

Second, financial disclosure and documentary evidence are essential. Disputes involving concealed assets, trusts, business income, and retirement benefits often depend upon careful investigation of financial records and ownership arrangements.

Third, equitable distribution requires analysis of the particular assets and circumstances presented. The classification of inherited property, treatment of employment-related equity compensation, and selection of valuation dates cannot be resolved through automatic rules applicable to every divorce.

Fourth, child custody and support determinations must be supported by the governing legal standards and relevant evidence. The financial circumstances of parents, children’s needs, and the adequacy of judicial findings can have substantial consequences.

Finally, the language of settlement agreements matters. Carefully drafted agreements may prevent future disputes, while ambiguous provisions can result in litigation years after a divorce judgment has entered.

Representation in Complex Rhode Island Divorce and Family Law Matters

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents individuals in divorce and family law matters involving substantial financial interests, closely held businesses, commercial and residential real estate, trusts, retirement benefits, alimony, child custody, parenting time, and child support.

Our family law practice is led by attorney Ryanna T. Capalbo.

The firm’s experience in family law, business law, real estate, and civil litigation provides additional perspective when divorce proceedings involve complex financial arrangements, disputed business valuations, commercial property, executive compensation, retirement assets, and the classification of marital and nonmarital property.

These overlapping areas of law can be particularly important in high-net-worth divorce proceedings, where the financial consequences of equitable distribution may extend beyond the immediate division of assets and affect business operations, investment holdings, retirement planning, and future financial security.

Our attorneys represent clients in contested and uncontested divorce proceedings, financial discovery disputes, equitable distribution, alimony, child custody, parenting time, child support, and post-divorce litigation.

We recognize that family law matters require careful consideration of both the applicable legal standards and the practical consequences of the decisions being made. Our approach emphasizes thorough preparation, detailed factual investigation, informed legal analysis, and strategies tailored to each client’s circumstances.

Where appropriate, we work toward negotiated resolutions that address our clients’ legal and financial interests. When disputes cannot be resolved through negotiation or mediation, our attorneys are prepared to represent clients in contested proceedings before the Rhode Island Family Court.

Why Recent Rhode Island Family Law Decisions Matter

The Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions discussed in this article demonstrate that the outcome of divorce and family law litigation frequently depends upon the particular evidence presented and the application of established legal principles to complicated factual circumstances.

For individuals who own closely held businesses, the terms of shareholder agreements and other ownership documents may substantially affect the valuation of marital assets.

For executives and professionals receiving stock options, restricted stock units, or deferred compensation, the classification and valuation of employment-related benefits may have significant consequences for equitable distribution.

For spouses who own inherited or premarital property, maintaining accurate records concerning acquisition, ownership, and subsequent treatment may be important in disputes involving the classification of separate property.

For individuals with pension and retirement benefits, carefully drafted marital settlement agreements and appropriate domestic relations orders can be essential to implementing and enforcing property division obligations.

For parents involved in child custody or relocation disputes, the evidence concerning the best interests of their children and the adequacy of the Family Court’s findings can be critical.

For parents involved in child support proceedings, accurate financial information, appropriate guideline calculations, and careful consideration of earning capacity can significantly affect the resulting obligations.

These decisions also illustrate the importance of identifying legal and financial issues early in the proceedings, preserving relevant evidence, complying with financial disclosure requirements, and obtaining appropriate legal advice before entering binding agreements.

Learn More About Rhode Island Divorce and Family Law

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC provides representation in a broad range of divorce and family law matters. Additional information about specific legal issues is available through the following practice-area pages:

• Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers — Contested and uncontested divorce, equitable distribution, alimony, custody, and divorce litigation.
• High Net Worth Divorce — Complex marital estates, business ownership, executive compensation, investment assets, and substantial financial disputes.
• Property Division and Equitable Distribution — Marital and nonmarital property, inherited assets, retirement benefits, real estate, and business valuations.
• Child Custody and Visitation — Legal custody, physical placement, parenting time, relocation, and contested custody proceedings.
• Child Support — Child support calculations, business income, earning capacity, modifications, and enforcement.
• Spousal Support and Alimony — Financial support, earning capacity, alimony determinations, and post-divorce disputes.
• Rhode Island Family Law — An overview of the firm’s divorce and domestic relations practice.

Consult a Rhode Island Divorce and Family Law Attorney

If you are considering divorce, involved in a dispute concerning marital property, or facing questions involving business valuations, retirement assets, alimony, child custody, or child support, Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can assist you in evaluating your legal rights and options.

Our attorneys represent individuals in contested and uncontested divorce proceedings, complex financial litigation, high-net-worth divorce matters, custody disputes, support proceedings, and post-divorce litigation.

The decisions discussed in this article illustrate that even established principles of Rhode Island family law may require detailed factual analysis and careful consideration of recent appellate authority.

Whether your matter involves a negotiated marital settlement agreement or contested proceedings before the Family Court, our attorneys can review your circumstances, explain the legal issues involved, and discuss an appropriate course of action.

To arrange a consultation, call 401-300-4055 or contact Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC online.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC
1350 Division Road, Suite 102
West Warwick, Rhode Island 02879
Telephone: 401-300-4055

About the Author

Ryanna T. Capalbo, Esq., is a partner at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC and leads the firm’s family law practice. Her practice includes divorce, child custody, property division, alimony, child support, and contested litigation.

Attorney Capalbo has also successfully argued before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, including the adverse possession appeal in Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023).

Her practice reflects the firm’s commitment to careful legal analysis, thorough preparation, and effective advocacy in matters involving significant personal, financial, and property interests.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The application of Rhode Island law depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Statutes, court rules, and judicial interpretations may change, and readers should consult qualified legal counsel concerning their individual circumstances.

Legal developments discussed through October 2026.

Property ownership disputes frequently arise when the boundaries reflected in recorded deeds and surveys differ from how land has actually been occupied and used for many years. A homeowner may have maintained a neighboring parcel, constructed improvements beyond a recorded boundary, or treated an adjoining strip of land as part of the property for decades.

Under certain circumstances, Rhode Island law permits a person to acquire ownership of land through adverse possession. However, establishing such a claim requires clear and convincing evidence satisfying specific legal requirements.

One of the important recent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions addressing these requirements is The Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023).

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represented the property owners, John and Donna Foisy, in their successful appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Attorney Ryanna T. Capalbo argued the appeal on their behalf. The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment against the Foisys and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The decision provides important guidance concerning the evidence necessary to establish open and notorious possession, the significance of historical property use, and the circumstances under which an appellate court may reverse a trial court’s adverse possession findings.

What Is Adverse Possession Under Rhode Island Law?

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine under which a person may acquire ownership of property belonging to another when the person’s possession satisfies the requirements established by Rhode Island law.

The principal statute is R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-7-1, which establishes a ten-year period of qualifying possession.

To establish adverse possession, a claimant must prove that possession was actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive under a claim of right for at least ten years.

The claimant must establish the required elements by clear and convincing evidence.

These requirements serve different purposes. Actual possession concerns the physical occupation or use of the disputed property. Open and notorious possession concerns whether the use was sufficiently visible or apparent to place the record owner on notice. Hostility generally concerns possession inconsistent with the owner’s rights rather than possession authorized by permission. Continuity and exclusivity concern the nature and duration of the claimant’s possession.

The application of these elements depends upon the particular property, its character, the conduct of the parties, and the available evidence.

For a more detailed discussion, visit our Rhode Island Adverse Possession Practice.

The Foisy Case: A Longstanding Property Dispute in North Smithfield

The Foisy litigation arose from a dispute between the Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield and adjoining property owners John and Donna Foisy.

The Foisy family’s property had been owned by successive generations beginning in 1922. The controversy involved two adjoining areas referred to in the litigation as the northern encroachment and eastern encroachment.

The northern encroachment consisted of approximately 12,682 square feet, while the eastern encroachment consisted of approximately 12,131 square feet.

The cemetery asserted that both areas were part of its property and that the Foisys had improperly encroached upon them.

The Foisys maintained that their longstanding possession and use of the disputed areas supported a claim of ownership through adverse possession.

The Northern Encroachment

The evidence concerning the northern encroachment included decades of activity involving the storage of vehicles, scrap metal, equipment, and other materials.

The record included testimony concerning the use of the property by Mr. Foisy’s father, municipal notices dating back to 1981, photographs, and testimony from representatives of the cemetery.

The cemetery’s own representative acknowledged observing the storage activities and testified concerning the continued occupation and use of the disputed area.

The evidence also addressed whether the activities were sufficiently visible and whether the precise locations of stored materials had changed over time.

The Eastern Encroachment

The eastern encroachment presented different factual circumstances.

Evidence concerning that area included lawn maintenance, vegetation management, the planting of arborvitae, the placement of boulders, fencing, and historical use of the property by the Foisy family.

The parties disagreed about whether those activities were sufficient to establish open and notorious possession over the required period.

The dispute illustrates an important feature of adverse possession litigation: the character of the property and the manner in which an owner would ordinarily use it can be relevant to evaluating the claimant’s conduct.

The Superior Court’s Decision

Following a bench trial, the Rhode Island Superior Court ruled against the Foisys on their adverse possession counterclaim.

The trial justice concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the required actual, continuous, open, and notorious possession of the disputed areas.

The Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the cemetery and ordered the removal of structures, objects, and materials from the encroachments.

The Foisys appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represented them in that appeal, with attorney Ryanna T. Capalbo presenting their arguments before the Court.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s Decision in Foisy

On May 10, 2023, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued its decision in The Union Cemetery Burial Society of North Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205.

The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Court concluded that the trial justice had overlooked or misconstrued material evidence and failed to properly account for relevant Rhode Island precedent concerning adverse possession.

The Northern Encroachment: Evidence of Visible and Continuous Use

The Supreme Court examined testimony concerning the longstanding storage of vehicles, scrap materials, and equipment on the northern encroachment.

The evidence included testimony from both Mr. Foisy and the cemetery’s representative concerning the character and duration of the property’s use.

The Court determined that the evidence was sufficient to establish the relevant actual, continuous, open, and notorious elements of possession.

The Court also rejected the argument that the claim necessarily failed because the stored materials had changed in location or size over time.

An important consideration was that the parties had stipulated to the boundaries of the two disputed areas, which were identified on a survey introduced at trial.

The decision demonstrates the importance of evaluating the entire evidentiary record rather than isolating particular activities or requiring an identical pattern of physical occupation throughout the statutory period.

The Eastern Encroachment: Property Maintenance and the Character of the Land

The Supreme Court separately evaluated the evidence concerning the eastern encroachment.

Unlike the northern area, the eastern encroachment involved activities such as mowing, vegetation maintenance, landscaping, fencing, and other uses consistent with the character of the property.

The Court concluded that the trial justice had given insufficient weight to material evidence and had not properly applied controlling adverse possession decisions.

The Supreme Court determined that the Foisys had established the open and notorious character of their use and possession of the eastern encroachment by clear and convincing evidence.

The decision illustrates that adverse possession does not necessarily require construction of a building or other substantial permanent improvement.

Whether particular activities constitute sufficient possession depends upon the character of the land, the duration of the use, and the surrounding circumstances.

What the Supreme Court Did—and Did Not—Decide

The distinction between the appellate ruling and a final determination of ownership is important.

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment against the Foisys and concluded that the Superior Court had erred in its evaluation of the evidence concerning actual, continuous, open, and notorious possession.

However, the Supreme Court did not finally determine that the Foisys had established every required element of adverse possession.

Instead, the Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings concerning the hostile and exclusive elements of the adverse possession claim, as necessary.

Accordingly, the reported appellate decision represents a successful challenge to the adverse judgment and an important ruling concerning the evidentiary requirements for adverse possession. It should not be characterized as a final Supreme Court judgment awarding title to the Foisys.

Readers can review the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s Foisy opinion.

Why Foisy Matters for Rhode Island Property Owners

The Foisy decision offers several important lessons for property owners involved in adverse possession and boundary disputes.

1. Historical Property Use Can Be Critical

Evidence concerning property use many years before a lawsuit may determine whether the required statutory period has been satisfied.

Historical photographs, municipal notices, correspondence, surveys, and testimony from individuals familiar with the property can become important evidence.

In Foisy, historical activities and testimony concerning longstanding possession were central to the Supreme Court’s analysis.

2. Open and Notorious Possession Does Not Require a Particular Type of Improvement

Adverse possession claims are highly fact-dependent.

The character of the land and the activities ordinarily associated with its use may affect whether possession is sufficiently visible.

The absence of a permanent building does not necessarily defeat an adverse possession claim.

Similarly, activities such as mowing or landscaping must be evaluated in context rather than automatically treated as sufficient or insufficient.

3. The Entire Evidentiary Record Matters

The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates that trial courts must evaluate material evidence in light of the applicable legal standards.

Evidence that is undisputed or corroborated by an opposing party may be particularly significant.

The Supreme Court’s reversal in Foisy arose from its conclusion that the trial justice had overlooked or misconstrued material evidence and failed to account for instructive precedent.

4. Clearly Identifying the Disputed Property Is Important

Adverse possession litigation frequently requires careful identification of the land being claimed.

Surveys, legal descriptions, historical plans, and stipulations concerning the location and boundaries of disputed property can play an important role.

In Foisy, the parties’ stipulation identifying the northern and eastern encroachments was significant to the Supreme Court’s rejection of an argument concerning the definition of the claimed areas.

5. Possession by Prior Owners May Be Relevant

Rhode Island law recognizes that, under appropriate circumstances, successive periods of qualifying possession may be considered together through the doctrine of tacking.

This can be important when a family or successive owners have occupied or maintained disputed property for decades.

Whether tacking is available depends upon the circumstances and applicable legal requirements.

Subsequent Rhode Island Supreme Court Decisions Citing Foisy

The significance of Foisy extends beyond the original dispute.

Subsequent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions have cited Foisy when addressing adverse possession and related property rights.

O’Keefe v. York, 308 A.3d 983 (R.I. 2024)

In O’Keefe, the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed adverse possession involving cotenants.

The Court explained that a claimant asserting adverse possession against a cotenant faces additional requirements concerning exclusion of the other cotenant’s rights.

The decision demonstrates that the relationship between the parties can affect the evidence required to establish adverse possession.

Urbonas v. Gullison, 337 A.3d 673 (R.I. 2025)

In Urbonas, the Supreme Court addressed boundary by acquiescence and prescriptive easement claims.

The Court distinguished the requirements for establishing an agreed boundary through acquiescence from those applicable to a prescriptive easement.

The decision illustrates that adverse possession, prescriptive easements, and boundary by acquiescence are distinct legal doctrines, even though disputes involving them may arise from similar patterns of property use.

Blechman v. Woodward, 352 A.3d 157 (R.I. 2026)

In Blechman, the Supreme Court addressed the hostility requirement in adverse possession and prescriptive easement claims.

The Court considered the significance of offers to purchase disputed land and acknowledgments of another person’s ownership.

The decision reinforces the importance of determining whether a claimant’s conduct was inconsistent with the record owner’s rights or instead recognized the owner’s superior title.

Desrochers v. Micheli, 357 A.3d 1048 (R.I. 2026)

In Desrochers, the Supreme Court again addressed the requirements for adverse possession, including hostility and the effect of permissive use.

The Court explained that permissive use does not satisfy the hostility requirement merely because it continues over time.

The decision also addressed the identification of disputed property and the evidence necessary to establish the claimed area with sufficient particularity.

Together, these decisions demonstrate the continuing importance of Rhode Island Supreme Court precedent in resolving adverse possession and boundary disputes.

Adverse Possession Compared With Prescriptive Easements and Boundary by Acquiescence

Property owners sometimes assume that longstanding use of neighboring land necessarily creates ownership rights.

However, Rhode Island recognizes different legal doctrines that may apply depending upon the circumstances.

Adverse possession concerns the acquisition of title to property through qualifying possession.

A prescriptive easement generally concerns acquiring a right to use another person’s property for a particular purpose without acquiring ownership of the land itself.

Boundary by acquiescence concerns circumstances in which adjoining property owners have recognized and accepted a particular boundary over the legally required period.

Each doctrine has distinct requirements and consequences.

Determining which claim may be appropriate requires examination of the deeds, surveys, historical use, communications between owners, and other relevant evidence.

Learn more about our Easements Practice and Real Estate Litigation Practice.

How Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC Handles Adverse Possession Litigation

Adverse possession litigation often involves a combination of legal research, historical investigation, title examination, surveys, witness testimony, and detailed factual analysis.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents property owners asserting and defending adverse possession claims and related disputes concerning property boundaries, easements, encroachments, and ownership rights.

Our representation may include examination of recorded deeds and plans, investigation of historical property use, evaluation of witness testimony, analysis of surveys, preparation of pleadings, discovery, motion practice, trial, and appellate proceedings.

Our firm’s successful appellate representation in Foisy reflects its experience litigating contested real property claims and addressing the evidentiary and legal standards applicable to adverse possession.

Our attorneys recognize that these disputes can affect substantial property interests, the location of improvements, access rights, property values, and the ability of owners to use and develop their land.

We evaluate the particular circumstances of each matter and pursue legal strategies directed toward protecting our clients’ rights and interests.

Speak With a Rhode Island Adverse Possession Attorney

If you are involved in an adverse possession dispute, have discovered that a fence or improvement crosses a property line, or believe that longstanding possession may affect ownership of adjoining land, Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can assist you in evaluating your legal options.

Our attorneys represent property owners in Rhode Island real estate litigation involving adverse possession, boundary disputes, easements, quiet title actions, encroachments, and related property claims.

Whether you are seeking to establish ownership rights or defend your property against an adverse possession claim, careful evaluation of the governing law and available evidence is important.

Contact Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC to discuss your property dispute.

Call 401-300-4055 or contact our attorneys online.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC
1350 Division Road, Suite 102
West Warwick, Rhode Island 02879
Telephone: 401-300-4055

This article provides general information about Rhode Island adverse possession law and the reported appellate decision in Foisy. It does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any adverse possession dispute depends upon the facts, applicable law, and evidence presented. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in another matter.

October 2026 | Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC

Rhode Island has enacted a comprehensive new Limited Liability Company Act that will substantially change the statutory framework governing limited liability companies, their members, managers, and business operations. The legislation, enacted through 2026 Rhode Island Public Laws Chapters 246 and 247, establishes a new Chapter 7-16.1 of the Rhode Island General Laws, scheduled to take effect January 1, 2028.

The new Act addresses important issues involving LLC operating agreements, management authority, fiduciary duties, voting rights, ownership interests, business transactions, and dissolution.

For Rhode Island business owners, these changes present an important opportunity to evaluate existing operating agreements, ownership arrangements, and management procedures before the new statutory framework becomes applicable.

The changes are particularly significant for closely held businesses, real estate investment companies, family-owned LLCs, and businesses with multiple members whose interests and responsibilities are governed by operating agreements.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents business owners, LLC members, managers, investors, and business entities in matters involving business formation, corporate governance, operating agreements, commercial transactions, and business litigation.

1. Why Rhode Island Is Replacing Its Existing LLC Act

Rhode Island’s existing Limited Liability Company Act, codified at R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 7-16, has governed limited liability companies for decades.

Although the existing statute establishes fundamental rules concerning formation, management, membership interests, and dissolution, it does not address certain governance and fiduciary duty issues with the same specificity found in more modern LLC statutes.

The new Rhode Island Limited Liability Company Act draws upon the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act and establishes a more detailed statutory framework addressing relationships among members, managers, and the LLC itself.

Among the most important developments are express statutory provisions governing fiduciary duties, operating agreements, management structures, voting requirements, and business transactions.

These changes may affect how operating agreements are drafted, how business decisions are authorized, and how disputes among LLC members and managers are evaluated.

2. When Does Rhode Island’s New LLC Act Take Effect?

The new Rhode Island Limited Liability Company Act is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2028.

However, the legislation establishes transitional provisions governing its application to LLCs formed before that date.

Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16.1-110, the new Act generally applies to newly formed LLCs beginning January 1, 2028.

For LLCs formed before that date, the legislation provides a transition period during which an existing company may elect to be governed by the new Act in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements.

Beginning January 1, 2029, the new Act generally governs existing Rhode Island LLCs as well, subject to the statute’s transitional provisions.

This distinction is important because business owners should not assume that every existing LLC will automatically become subject to all provisions of the new Act on January 1, 2028.

Existing LLCs should evaluate their operating agreements and governance arrangements well before the transition period concludes.

3. New Statutory Fiduciary Duties for LLC Members and Managers

One of the most significant changes concerns the express statutory recognition of fiduciary duties applicable to LLC members and managers.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16.1-409 establishes standards concerning duties of loyalty and care.

Under the new framework, the applicable duties depend in part upon whether the LLC is member-managed or manager-managed.

The statutory duty of loyalty addresses matters including accounting for company property and opportunities, conflicts of interest, transactions involving the company, and certain competing activities.

The duty of care addresses conduct involving gross negligence, recklessness, intentional misconduct, and knowing violations of law.

These provisions are particularly important in disputes involving closely held businesses where one or more members exercise substantial control over company finances, management decisions, or business opportunities.

How Fiduciary Duties May Affect LLC Litigation

Disputes may arise when one member alleges that another member or manager improperly transferred company assets, diverted a business opportunity, engaged in self-dealing, or acted contrary to duties owed to the LLC.

The new statutory provisions provide a more express framework for evaluating certain obligations of members and managers.

However, whether a particular duty exists, has been breached, or supports a claim for relief will continue to depend upon the applicable law, governing agreements, and facts of the dispute.

Business owners should also recognize that the new Act establishes rules concerning the extent to which operating agreements may modify certain statutory obligations.

These issues make careful drafting and review of operating agreements particularly important.

For more information concerning ownership litigation, visit our Business Law and Commercial Litigation Practice.

4. Operating Agreements Under the New Rhode Island LLC Act

An operating agreement establishes important rights and obligations concerning the ownership, management, and operation of a limited liability company.

Operating agreements commonly address management authority, voting rights, capital contributions, financial distributions, membership transfers, withdrawal, dissociation, and dissolution.

Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16.1-105, the new Act establishes a comprehensive framework governing the relationship between operating agreements and statutory requirements.

The operating agreement generally governs relationships among members and managers and the company’s activities, while statutory default provisions address matters not otherwise governed by the agreement.

However, the Act also establishes limitations on the extent to which operating agreements may alter certain statutory rights and duties.

Why Existing Operating Agreements Should Be Reviewed

Operating agreements prepared under the existing Rhode Island LLC Act may contain provisions that differ from the new statutory defaults.

For example, an agreement may address voting thresholds, management authority, fiduciary obligations, capital contributions, or distributions in ways that require careful evaluation under the new law.

An operating agreement may also be silent concerning matters that the new Act addresses expressly.

Where the agreement does not control a particular issue, applicable statutory provisions may determine the parties’ rights and obligations.

Business owners should consider reviewing their operating agreements before the new Act becomes applicable to determine whether amendments are appropriate.

The need for an amendment will depend upon the existing agreement, the ownership structure, the applicable transitional provisions, and the objectives of the members.

5. Management Authority and Voting Requirements

Management authority is a frequent source of disputes among LLC members.

Questions may arise concerning which individuals have authority to enter contracts, incur debt, transfer company property, approve expenditures, admit new members, or make other significant business decisions.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16.1-407 establishes rules concerning management structures, voting, and certain consent requirements.

The new Act distinguishes between member-managed and manager-managed LLCs and provides default rules governing management authority and member decisions.

Certain actions outside the ordinary course of business and amendments to operating agreements may require unanimous member consent under the statutory defaults, subject to the governing provisions of the Act and the operating agreement.

These requirements may be particularly important for LLCs with multiple members, unequal ownership interests, or disagreements concerning management authority.

Preventing Disputes Through Clear Governance Provisions

Operating agreements should clearly identify the persons authorized to manage the business, the decisions requiring member approval, applicable voting thresholds, and procedures for resolving disagreements.

Businesses should also consider how their governing documents address deadlocks, removal of managers, ownership transfers, and extraordinary transactions.

Clear organizational provisions can help reduce uncertainty and establish procedures for addressing disputes before they disrupt business operations.

6. LLC Member Rights, Ownership Disputes, and Financial Obligations

Disputes among LLC members frequently involve ownership percentages, capital contributions, distributions, access to financial records, and the interpretation of operating agreements.

These disputes can become particularly complicated when members disagree concerning whether an ownership interest has been diluted, whether a capital contribution was properly credited, or whether distributions were made in accordance with the governing agreements.

Other disputes may concern whether a member has been properly dissociated, whether an ownership transfer is valid, or whether a manager has acted beyond the authority established by the operating agreement.

The new LLC Act provides a more detailed statutory framework addressing relationships among members, managers, and the company.

However, the resolution of any particular dispute will continue to require examination of the governing agreement, financial records, applicable statutes, and conduct of the parties.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents LLC members, managers, and business entities in disputes involving operating agreements, fiduciary duties, ownership rights, distributions, capital contributions, dissociation, and business dissolution.

7. Changes to LLC Formation and Organizational Requirements

The new Act also modifies the statutory framework for forming Rhode Island limited liability companies.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-16.1-201 addresses formation through the filing of a certificate of organization.

This replaces the terminology and certain procedures associated with articles of organization under the existing statutory framework.

The new legislation also addresses organizational names, registered agents, management arrangements, and other formation requirements.

Business owners forming an LLC after the new Act becomes effective should ensure that their organizational documents and filings comply with the requirements then in force.

Those considering professional service LLCs or specialized organizational structures should also evaluate the applicable naming, licensing, and organizational requirements.

8. Business Transactions, Ownership Transfers, and Restructuring

The new Rhode Island LLC Act includes provisions addressing mergers, interest exchanges, conversions, and domestications.

These transactions may involve significant changes to an entity’s ownership, organizational structure, jurisdiction, or business operations.

The statutory framework governing these transactions is important because the legal requirements may affect member approval, contractual obligations, ownership interests, creditor rights, and the continued existence of an entity.

Business owners considering a merger, restructuring, conversion, or transfer of substantial ownership interests should review their operating agreements and applicable statutory requirements before proceeding.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC assists business owners with commercial agreements, business transactions, organizational restructuring, and disputes arising from ownership transfers.

9. LLC Dissolution, Dissociation, and Winding Up

Disputes among LLC members may eventually result in withdrawal, dissociation, negotiated buyouts, dissolution, or litigation concerning the winding up of business affairs.

These matters can involve substantial financial and legal issues, including the valuation of ownership interests, allocation of company assets, satisfaction of creditor claims, and distribution of remaining property.

The new Act addresses the statutory framework applicable to LLC membership and business operations, including provisions relevant to dissolution and winding up.

The availability of judicial dissolution or other relief depends upon the applicable statutory requirements, governing agreements, and facts of the dispute.

Not every ownership disagreement justifies dissolution. In some circumstances, negotiated buyouts, amendments to governing agreements, or other resolutions may allow the business to continue operating.

Where litigation is necessary, our attorneys evaluate available claims, defenses, and remedies in light of the client’s ownership interests and commercial objectives.

10. What Rhode Island LLC Owners Should Do Before 2028

The enactment of the new LLC Act provides an opportunity for business owners to evaluate their existing organizational arrangements.

Before the new statutory framework becomes applicable, LLC owners should consider reviewing:

• Existing operating agreements and amendments.
• Management structures and authority to bind the company.
• Member voting rights and consent requirements.
• Fiduciary duty and conflict-of-interest provisions.
• Capital contribution requirements.
• Profit and loss allocations and financial distributions.
• Ownership transfer restrictions and buy-sell provisions.
• Member withdrawal and dissociation procedures.
• Deadlock resolution provisions.
• Dissolution and winding-up procedures.
• Company records and organizational compliance.

A review does not necessarily mean that every LLC must amend its operating agreement.

Rather, the purpose is to determine whether the existing agreement accurately reflects the members’ intentions and remains appropriate under the statutory framework that will govern the company.

Businesses with multiple owners, significant real estate holdings, substantial assets, or complicated management arrangements may have particular reasons to undertake this review before the transition period concludes.

11. How the New LLC Act May Affect Business Litigation

The new legislation is significant not only for business formation and governance but also for litigation involving LLC members and managers.

Disputes concerning fiduciary duties, operating agreements, management authority, voting rights, distributions, and ownership interests may require analysis of both the contractual provisions governing the LLC and the statutory framework applicable at the relevant time.

The effective date of the legislation, the formation date of the LLC, the transitional provisions, and the timing of the disputed conduct may all affect the legal analysis.

Business owners and their attorneys should therefore avoid assuming that a dispute arising before the new Act becomes applicable will necessarily be governed by the same statutory provisions as conduct occurring afterward.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents LLC members, managers, investors, and business entities in disputes involving contractual obligations, fiduciary duties, ownership rights, financial distributions, dissociation, dissolution, and related commercial litigation.

Our attorneys evaluate the applicable statutory framework, operating agreements, financial documentation, and evidence concerning the parties’ conduct to determine available claims, defenses, and remedies.

12. Business Law and LLC Litigation Representation at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC

Business ownership disputes require an understanding of both the governing law and the practical financial and operational issues affecting the enterprise.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC combines business litigation experience with legal services involving business formation, commercial transactions, operating agreements, corporate governance, and ownership disputes.

Our managing partner, Andrew R. Bilodeau, holds a Master of Business Administration from Northeastern University and brings substantial entrepreneurial and business management experience to the firm’s practice.

This background provides additional insight into the financial and operational considerations that frequently arise in business ownership disputes and commercial transactions.

Our attorneys represent clients throughout Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in matters involving business law, commercial litigation, and related legal issues.

We recognize that changes in business entity law can affect both existing organizational arrangements and future business decisions. Our objective is to help clients understand their legal obligations, evaluate potential risks, and protect their financial and ownership interests.

Speak With a Rhode Island Business Lawyer About the New LLC Act

If you own or manage a Rhode Island limited liability company, are considering forming a new business, or are involved in a dispute concerning an LLC operating agreement, ownership rights, management authority, or fiduciary duties, Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can assist you in evaluating your legal options.

Our attorneys provide business law and commercial litigation representation involving LLC formation, operating agreements, corporate governance, ownership disputes, and business transactions.

With significant changes to Rhode Island LLC law scheduled to begin in 2028, existing business owners may benefit from reviewing their organizational documents and governance arrangements before the new statutory framework becomes applicable.

Contact Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC to discuss your business law matter.

Call 401-300-4055 or contact our attorneys online.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC
1350 Division Road, Suite 102
West Warwick, Rhode Island 02879
Telephone: 401-300-4055

This article provides general information about legislation enacted as of October 2026. It is not legal advice concerning any particular LLC, operating agreement, or dispute. The application of the new law depends upon its effective dates, transitional provisions, and the circumstances involved. Subsequent legislative amendments or judicial decisions may affect the discussion.

Legislative Sources

Rhode Island Public Laws 2026, Chapters 246 and 247, enacting the new Rhode Island Limited Liability Company Act, R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 7-16.1.

Relevant provisions include §§ 7-16.1-105 (operating agreements), 7-16.1-110 (application to existing relationships), 7-16.1-201 (formation), 7-16.1-407 (management), and 7-16.1-409 (standards of conduct for members and managers).

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.

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.

According to the facts discussed on the court’s decision, a mother sought to relocate with a child to another state. The mother and father, who never married, separated shortly after the child’s birth. The family court previously granted the mother temporary custody and physical possession, and it granted the father visitation. After being furloughed from her job, the mother relocated to Massachusetts to accept a new position and lived with her parents. As a result, the mother filed an emergency motion to permanently relocate to Massachusetts with the child. Later, she accepted a third position close to her parents’ home, which was nearly two hours from the father’s Rhode Island town. In her motion, she explained that she was previously paying $2,000 in rent in Rhode Island, commuting almost two hours to work, and working long hours. In Massachusetts, she could stay with her parents, reduce her living expenses, and rely on her parents for childcare assistance. The magistrate judge granted the mother’s motion to permanently relocate to Massachusetts, finding that relocation was in the best interests of the child. The father appealed to family court, which affirmed the decision. The father then appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

On appeal, the father argued that the primary reason the mother asserted for her relocation, her new job, was no longer valid since she accepted a third position. Therefore, the father suggested that the mother should have looked for new employment and housing closer to his Rhode Island home. The Rhode Island Supreme Court disagreed. The court concluded that the family court properly found no error with the magistrate’s decision. In reaching its conclusion, the court cited the mother’s desire to be closer to her parents and save costs on rent and childcare. The magistrate appropriately recognized the mother’s desire to prioritize her son’s emotion well-being and compensated for a loss of income to spend more time with him. By contrast, the father testified that he had no family in Rhode Island who provided additional daycare for the child. While the father offered the mother financial support and intended to change his work schedule to be a primary caregiver, the magistrate properly recognized that the mother had taken more action to make herself available for her son. Finally, the court noted that the family court record reflects the magistrate’s conclusion that the father’s relationship with his son will continue. Specifically, it explained that the mother was willing to make arrangements around the father’s work schedule and keep the father informed about the child’s medical appointments. Therefore, the court found that the family court did not err in affirming the magistrate’s decision to grant the relocation order based on the child’s best interests.

Do You Plan to Relocate with Your Child?

Whether you receive a better job offer or need to be closer to family, you may wish to file a motion to relocate in court. However, your child’s other parent may object to the order. In response, you may need to present evidence that relocation is in your child’s best interests. If you are seeking to relocate with your child, contact the experienced Rhode Island family law attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo. Our attorneys have successfully represented clients in relocation cases. Through our skilled advocacy, we can help make the strongest argument to the judge that relocation is in your child’s best interests. To schedule a free consultation with an experienced Rhode Island family law attorney, call us at 401-300-4055.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case divorced her husband in 1995. As part of a property settlement, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to half of the man’s retirement account in lieu of an alimony award. The man remarried years later and continued to accrue retirement benefits from his employer. The man died in 2020, and both his former spouse and his widow sought the surviving spouse benefits from the man’s employer. After the employer refused to award the benefits to the ex, she sued both the employer and the widow, seeking to enforce the divorce agreement and receive the retirement benefits.

After discussing the relevant laws, the Court ruled that the widow was entitled to all of the retirement benefits. Notably, the court found that because the 1995 divorce settlement agreement was “incorporated but not merged” into the final divorce judgment, the settlement was not enforceable by the family court and instead simply as a contract between the parties. Because the laws dictating the dispersal of pension benefits superseded contractual obligations in this case, the ex-spouse did not have a valid claim over the assets.

To most any layman and many attorneys, the difference between an “incorporated” agreement and a “merged” one may appear insignificant, but this recent case demonstrates that a seemingly minor distinction in the language of a contract, stipulation, or order can make the difference in determining the ownership of hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more. Anyone anticipating a divorce involving retirement plans, pensions or other assets should seek out the advice of a qualified Rhode Island divorce attorney to ensure that any agreement is enforceable in the event of a party’s remarriage.

If you or a loved one is anticipating a divorce in Rhode Island, little details may make all the difference in what you receive. Small mistakes at the outset of a divorce may prevent you from receiving what you deserve years down the road. To prevent avoidable mistakes, you should reach out to the qualified Rhode Island family law lawyers at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP to assist you. Our dedicated attorneys understand the complexities of Rhode Island divorce law, and with our assistance, you can be comfortable that you will receive all that you deserve once your case is resolved. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

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 trial court granted DCYF’s petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. Specifically, DCYF had sufficiently proven that it offered the mother services to correct the situation that led to the separation, and the mother was unfit based on her “seriously detrimental” mental health symptoms. On appeal, the mother argued that the district court erred in finding that the DCYF made reasonable efforts at reunification when she was hospitalized. She further alleged that DCYF failed to offer services reasonably designed to address her mental health needs. However, the Rhode Island Supreme Court court rejected these claims.

The Reasonable Efforts Standard

As the court explained, DCYF must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it made “reasonable efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship” before a court can terminate a parent’s rights. Rhode Island courts must determine the reasonableness of DCYF’s efforts based on the particular facts of each case.

The Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the court found that the district judge did not err in determining the DCYF made reasonable efforts at reunification. DCYF made ongoing requests for the mother to sign releases, which the mother refused. Then, her hospitalization further impeded DCYF’s ability to communicate with her. Additionally, during her hospitalization, visitations with her child became virtually impossible because there was no opportunity for supervised visitation. Because DCYF made ongoing attempts to communicate despite these setbacks, the agency’s efforts were reasonable, given the unfortunate circumstances.

Provision of Mental Health Services

The court also rejected the mother’s argument that DCYF failed to employ “reasonable efforts” because it did not provide services during her hospitalization. As the court explained, the law does not require DCYF to act as the sole service provider to the parents of children in DCYF custody. Rather, DCYF can offer services, or the parent can receive them elsewhere. Because the mother was receiving mental health services at the hospital, DCYF had no obligation to provide additional services. The court also credited caseworkers’ testimony that the hospital staff would not acknowledge the mother’s presence at the hospital, meaning the DCYF would have to go to extraordinary lengths to work with staff to provide services. DCYF thereby met its burden of proving that the mother received services to correct the situation that led to her child’s removal. Accordingly, the high court upheld the district court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

Skilled Legal Services for Parents in Custody Proceedings

If you or a loved one is undergoing a custody or termination proceeding, it is crucial that you have an experienced Rhode Island family law attorney to represent you. Trial judges may unfairly credit DCFY’s claims unless a skilled representative can advocate for your side of the story. The attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo possess years of experience navigating the complicated child welfare system to help reunite families. Through our compassionate representation, we will defend your right to maintain the care of your children. To schedule a free consultation and discuss your case, call us at 401-300-4055.

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.

According to the opinion’s account of the divorce proceedings below, the husband failed to respond to the wife’s requests to identify marital property and concealed several assets including his pension, workers’ compensation, Certificates of Deposit (CDs), undisclosed accounts, and ownership of the marital home. After several warnings, the trial judge sanctioned the defendant $1,000 per day that the husband failed to provide the requested documents showing proof of his assets, totaling $50,000. The husband argued that the assets were his separate property, though the wife paid what she believed to be her share of the mortgage every month. The trial judge awarded the wife 50% of the value of the husband’s pension, CDs, and the marital home’s appreciation in value. The trial judge also found that the appreciation of the wife’s second home was her separate property, as the husband’s remodeling projects did not contribute to the increased value.

On appeal, the husband argued that the trial judge erred in assigning marital assets to the wife, classifying the wife’s home as separate property, and imposing sanctions against him. He also claimed that the judge abused her discretion and disfavored him in the proceedings below. The high court affirmed the trial judge’s ruling. First, it reasoned that the husband’s decision to delay retirement should not deprive his wife of the pension. Second, the court found that the trial judge acted within her discretion in awarding 50% of the husband’s CDs to his wife. The husband provided no evidence that the CDs were his separate property, and he was not a credible witness on this point because he concealed his assets.

The court also found that the trial judge properly ruled on both homes: the wife contributed to the marital home’s appreciation in value, but the husband’s routine upkeep did not increase the second home’s value. Then, the court affirmed the trial judge’s decision to impose sanctions against the husband. Despite several warnings, the husband continued to withhold information about his assets for over a year after the deadline to disclose. When he did submit financial disclosures, he provided false information. Finally, the court found no evidence that the trial judge disfavored the husband. Because the husband failed to provide evidence that several assets were his separate property and actively hid them under penalty of perjury, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Do You Need a Rhode Island Family Law Attorney?

If you or a loved one is seeking a divorce, the property you believe is separate may actually be marital property subject to division. While this may be frustrating, disclosing your assets upfront will prevent you from receiving costly sanctions in the future. The Rhode Island divorce and family law attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo will work with you to understand disclosure requirements under Rhode Island law. Through our experienced representation, we have fought for our clients to recover a fair share of their marital property and retain their separate property. To discuss your case with a qualified Rhode Island family law attorney, call our office at 401-300-4055.