Rhode Island Real Estate Lawyer Blog

As property values increase in coastal Rhode Island and residents of other states purchase beachside homes as retirement or vacation properties, the long-standing conflicts over public beach access in the state will continue to worsen. Wealthy landowners and developers of luxury properties have a financial incentive to restrict public access to beaches in order to advertise their properties as more exclusive. Although the vast majority of beaches and land immediately adjacent to the coastline are public property, without public access from the road, residents and visitors have practically no way to use the public beaches. A recently published news report discusses a legal battle over beach access in Westerly, Rhode Island, specifically noting how the discovery of a historical survey map could turn the tide of the battle in favor of public beach access.

According to the report, the beach known as Quonochontaug, is one of the most beautiful beaches in the state. As beautiful as the beach is, there is currently no public access to the shore. Developers have purchased all of the land adjacent to the beach and blocked any public paths leading to the shore, creating what amounts to a private beach for their residents and customers. The article notes that one 50-foot wide trail that was previously used as public access has been blocked with a fence and is not currently usable. An attorney fighting for public access to the beach has been on a mission to prove that the fenced-off trail does not belong to the adjacent property owners and is in fact a public pathway that should remain passable to allow anyone to access the beautiful beach.

In an effort to make his case, the attorney combed through public historical documents to support his case. In the basement document repository of the Westerly town hall, the attorney found a document from 1939 known as a plat map that might prove his case. Plat maps are scale drawings of land that are approved and filed with the state and municipality to show the ownership and characteristics of the land as it is being developed. In the 1939 plat map that was prepared before the property surrounding Quonochontaug was developed, the 50-foot wide section of land was designated as a public road. According to the attorney quoted in the article, that designation has not been changed in the decades since the map was made, and the path remains public. If the attorney’s arguments are accepted by the state Coastal Resources Management Council, the fencing will need to be removed, and public access to the beach can be restored.

The laws of trespass are generally understood to apply to people who enter or remain on a piece of personal property without the consent of the owner or the legal right to do so. From a legal standpoint, the theory of trespass is much broader. Trespass to land is generally understood to entail a wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights in real property and can extend both underground and into airspace. In the event that a neighboring property owner modifies their own property in a manner that disrupts their neighbor from possessing or using their property, a trespass may have occurred. A Rhode Island Superior Court recently found that the state of Rhode Island is liable for trespass based on a stormwater drainage pit maintained by the state that repeatedly overflowed into a cemetery.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a cemetery that was founded in 1902 in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. Adjacent to the cemetery is a roadway that is maintained by the defendant, the State of Rhode Island. Until 1984, the state road had problems with flooding during times of heavy rain. In 1984, the plaintiff gave permission for the defendant to construct a drainage ditch and seepage pit on the cemetery property to alleviate the roadway flooding. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendant compensated the plaintiff and agreed to make reasonable attempts to reconstruct the road in a way that would alleviate the flooding and return the plaintiff’s property. The defiant never reconstructed the road, and the drainage system remains on the plaintiff’s property. According to the facts discussed in the judicial ruling, during times of heavy rains, the seepage pit overfills with water, which flows onto other parts of the plaintiff’s property.

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in state court in 2015, challenging the easement for the drainage ditch and alleging that the defendant has committed an actionable trespass against the plaintiff by allowing the seepage pit to overflow and flood the plaintiff’s property. The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims that the easement was invalid. The court did find that because the pit overflows and floods into areas of the plaintiff’s property not included in the easement, that a trespass had occurred. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on that issue, reserving the question of damages for a later date.

Across the United States, municipalities, states, and even the federal government have the right to seize the property of private citizens under some circumstances. Although the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure of their property, government actors have carved out a range of “reasonable” seizures that are permitted under the law. Some of these seizures are defined under the term “eminent domain.”

Rhode Island has codified the standards for the state and municipalities to take real property from citizens under Rhode Island General Laws, 42-64.12. The laws under this chapter are designed to set the process for an eminent domain taking and ensure that persons who have property seized by the government for any purpose are compensated fairly for their loss.

One reason the government commonly uses eminent domain powers is to construct or modify roadways or other infrastructure or utility improvements. Because this use is widely understood to be in furtherance of the public good, the government need only compensate private citizens for the property’s fair market value. In addition to infrastructure uses, the government often seeks to seize private property for economic development purposes. Because economic development is not as widely agreed to be for the public good, the government needs to compensate private citizens whose property is seized for economic development more generously than for other uses. Specifically, the government must pay at least 150% of the property’s fair market value, as well as for relocation and moving expenses incurred by the person whose property was seized.

Although trespassing is against the law in Rhode Island, adverse possession is legal a loophole that allows individuals to secure an ownership interest in a piece of property after a certain amount of time has passed. To avoid this issue, landowners should familiarize themselves with the basics of adverse possession claims in Rhode Island so they can best protect their property right and their ownership over their land.

In general, adverse possession laws allow people who improve and live on otherwise neglected property or land to gain legal title after a certain period of time has elapsed. Although this period of time varies from state to state, Rhode Island’s temporal requirement is ten years. This means that an individual who is a continuous trespasser could claim legal title to otherwise neglected land after openly living on it for at least ten years.

Although the Rhode Island law appears simple, there are additional requirements that must be met by the individual who is “squatting” on the land. Courts in Rhode Island have held that “squatters” seeking to establish a claim of adverse possession must prove that their possession of the land has been “actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, exclusive, and under a claim of right.”

For homes located between two towns, homeowners will often struggle with water service rights. Sometimes, neither town will claim responsibility to provide the landowners with water and other natural resources. However, owners can bring what is called a “friendly lawsuit” against a city, in order to speed along the process of providing water to residents. In a recent Rhode Island Supreme Court case, the court upheld a superior court decision that required the defendants, the Portsmouth Water & Fire District, to provide the plaintiffs’ homes with water.

In the recently decided case, an eleven-lot subdivision falls between the border of two cities. A farm in this subdivision, the plaintiffs, brought a “friendly lawsuit” to speed up the time to have the defendants, the water supplier of one of the cities, provide their lot with water. However, shortly thereafter, the defendants refused to permit the plaintiffs to connect the lots on the property to their water main. After this refusal, the plaintiffs sought to require the defendants to provide water services to the subdivision lots.

During the trial in the superior court, the plaintiffs argued that the lots were entitled to water service from the defendants because the lots had a portion of its property in the city they were seeking the water from. Additionally, the homeowners on these lots paid taxes to this city—if they paid taxes, they believed they were entitled to water service. On the other hand, the defendants asserted they could not provide water to the subdivision lots because their interpretation of the city’s charter required only providing water to buildings fully located within their city.

Agreements and plans to develop real property into commercial or residential real estate are often reliant on several conditions being met before the agreement can be fully executed and construction begins. Developers must often obtain financing, zoning rights, and natural resources clearance before constructing a development. When unexpected or unforeseen obstacles to any of these conditions arise, a real estate deal can begin to fall through. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court ruling that denied a developer’s request to force the owners of land to sell the land to the developers after conditions for the sale were not being met.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case is a real estate development company who entered into a purchase agreement with the defendants to buy several parcels of land with the intention of constructing a residential subdivision. As part of the purchase agreement, the plaintiff was supposed to secure financing for construction, as well as approval and permits from the town. The defendants agreed to be flexible with deadlines for the financing and approval, where appropriate. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff faced unexpected obstacles in obtaining approval for the construction. Because neither the approval nor the financing had been obtained, the defendants stopped cooperating with the plaintiff in extending deadlines.

The plaintiff sued the defendants in state court, asking the court to force the plaintiff to follow through on the purchase contract. The defendants requested that the contract be voided because the plaintiff did not obtain financing in accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement. The court sided with the defendants, finding that the plaintiff cannot demand specific performance of a contract under Rhode Island state law if they are not ready, willing and able to perform the contract at that time. Because the plaintiff did not secure financing as agreed to in the purchase agreement, the defendants were not required to uphold their end of the contract.