Rhode Island Real Estate Lawyer Blog

Municipalities in Rhode Island use zoning laws to encourage specific types of buildings and businesses to prosper in certain areas of the municipality. Specifically, cities can use zoning districts to exclude certain uses and types of construction from areas of a city that have been reserved for a specific use as part of a larger growth plan approved by a municipal council. A dispute over whether a privately operated charter school could be built in a commercial zoning district made its way to the state Supreme Court and was recently decided in favor of the school.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was the city of Woonsocket, which filed suit against a charter school that was run by a nonprofit organization. The school had previously gained approval from a city zoning official to build a location in the central business district of Woonsocket, and the plaintiffs did not want the school to exist at that location. The plaintiff sued in state court, alleging that the zoning approval should not have been granted by the official. The city argued that the district where the school would be located was for commercial development only and that nonprofit or private schools were specifically excluded from the zoning permissions for that location.

The defendant school, as well as the zoning official who approved the construction, argued that charter schools are in fact public schools under state law. Public schools are permitted in a commercial district as part of a municipal exception. The defendants demonstrated to the trial court that several areas of the state law classify charter schools as public schools and that a public school should and would be permitted at the proposed location. The plaintiffs’ claim that non-profit schools are not to be allowed in the district was rejected by the trial judge.

When larger parcels of land are subdivided into smaller parcels and lots for development, access easements and rights of way are important to preserve the marketability of the land. If certain lots do not have desirable access, they may not be suitable for construction. Buyers of private land should ensure that any easements for roadway access to their purchase are valid and enforceable. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently entered a ruling that affirmed a lower court’s decision to enforce an easement and grant injunctive relief to a developer that was in a dispute with a neighboring landowner over the validity of an easement adjacent to their land.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a construction and development company who had purchased land from the defendant in 2016 for purposes of residential construction. As a condition of the purchase agreement, the plaintiff required municipal approval of the subdivision plan that divided the defendant’s parcels. A subdivision plan was drafted and approved by the town of West Warwick, and it included an easement attached to the plaintiff’s lot allowing for access along a private lane that was adjacent to the lot. The warranty deed conveying the lot from the defendant to the plaintiff included a reference to a different subdivision plan that was never recorded or approved by the town, and had no express reference to the easement.

After closing, the defendant chose to obstruct the plaintiff’s access to the private road and denied the existence of an easement. The defendant relied on the unrecorded subdivision plan that had been incorporated into the warranty deed and claimed the plaintiff’s lot did not have an easement to the private road. The defendant placed boulders along the lot’s access to the private lane. The plaintiff sued the defendant in district court, seeking enforcement of the easement pursuant to the recorded subdivision plan, as well as an injunction by the court forcing the defendant to remove the boulders from the property and allow the plaintiff access to the private road.

Residential subdivisions in Rhode Island often contain multiple lots that can only be reasonably accessed through a shared private driveway system, portions of which multiple residents or property owners are entitled to use for accessing their property. Disputes over which parts of a shared driveway are shared and which are private are common, and property owners sometimes obstruct or impede their neighbors from using a part of a shared driveway that the owner believes is entirely private. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently upheld a superior court decision that enjoined a property owner from impeding their neighbor’s use of a portion of such a shared driveway.

The plaintiffs in the recently decided case are a family who purchased a home adjacent to the defendants in an eight lot subdivision that was accessed by a shared driveway system. The plaintiff’s property was situated closer to the public road than the defendant’s property and had two entrances to the shared driveway, a paved one closer to the road, and an unpaved entrance adjacent to the defendant’s property. Because the plaintiffs had a son with disabilities, a large school bus would come directly to the plaintiff’s home early in the morning on weekdays to pick him up in accordance with federal law. Because the shared driveway was narrow and situated on a steep grade, the school bus (as well as other utility or delivery vehicles servicing the plaintiffs) would use a part of the defendant’s driveway to back into the plaintiff’s driveway or turn around to descend the hill safely.

The defendants were bothered by the traffic of large vehicles with bright lights using part of their driveway to turn around and claimed that the plaintiffs had no right to allow the school bus to do so. The defendants erected a fence and a chain to impede any vehicles from using that portion of the driveway to help them access the plaintiff’s property safely. As a result of the defendant’s actions, the school bus driver was required to back directly down the long steep part of the hill, which was extremely difficult and resulted in the bus occasionally slipping off the road. The plaintiffs ultimately brought a case in Superior Court, alleging that there was an implied easement for their use of the portion of the defendant’s driveway that was necessary to safely turn around a large vehicle such as a school bus.

As state and municipal zoning and land use laws change and evolve, property owners can be placed in a difficult position if the intended use of their property becomes disallowed at some point because of the passage of a new law or regulation. To protect property owner’s rights, Rhode Island law permits owners to seek special use permits or other zoning variances which allow them to proceed with construction or other property uses which may not be permitted under current laws. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently reversed a zoning board’s denial of a property owner’s application for a special use permit to construct a septic system and house on a parcel of real estate.

In the recently decided case, the plaintiff owned a parcel of land in the town of Charlestown, Rhode Island. The parcel, which was slightly larger than one acre, was originally created as part of a subdivision project in the 1970s. Since the plaintiff purchased the parcel, the town increased the required lot size for home construction to three acres, making the parcel nonconforming for development under the new regulations. In order to proceed with construction on the property, the plaintiff applied for a special use permit and dimensional variance to allow them to construct a septic system and place a house on the parcel. The plaintiff first obtained a permit from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management for the construction plans and later sought the permit and variance from the town zoning board.

Although the Department of Environmental Management had approved the plaintiff’s plans, the zoning board disagreed with their conclusion and refused to grant the plaintiff the requested permits, effectively stopping the construction plans. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court, where the zoning board’s decision was upheld. The plaintiff appealed the Superior Court ruling to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the zoning board was required to accept the Department of Environmental Management’s decision to approve the construction of the septic system.

The real estate market across the United States has been on fire lately. According to a recent CNBC article, the median home price increased over 17 percent year-over-year to over $329,000. Rhode Island is no exception. According to a recent analysis from the online real estate company, Redfin, the median list price for a Rhode Island is $389,000. And while historically, on average, houses sold for slightly less than the list price due to buyer negotiating, that isn’t necessarily the case in today’s hot market.

To be sure, high home prices add to the challenges buyers face when seeking to purchase a home. However, the increasing sales prices are actually a function of another factor: a decrease in supply. As fewer homes are put on the market—and those that are put up for sale are quickly sold—the existing inventory of homes dwindles. Basic economics tells us that as supply decreases, prices will increase.

All this to say, the Rhode Island real estate market is competitive and buyers who want to end up with the house or property of their dreams need to be prepared to make a deal. Sellers are less likely to haggle over price or make the type of concessions they did decades ago. That said, buyers shouldn’t compromise on the important things, but shouldn’t insist on every aspect of the deal going their way, either.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Rhode Island real estate dispute, the facts of which were heavily in dispute. According to the plaintiff, he paid the defendant $150,000 over the course of ten years under the impression that all the money he paid to the defendant would be put towards the purchase of a certain piece of real estate. The defendant, however, maintained a vastly different story. According to the defendant, the money he received from the plaintiff was for his service as the plaintiff’s agent in the automotive business.

In 2015, the plaintiff filed an eight-count complaint against the defendant. Among the claims raised in the complaint were those of promissory estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

Making the case more interesting is the fact that the defendant was a former state representative. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to preclude the plaintiff from mentioning this fact at trial; however, the court denied the motion.