Contact Us
Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently decided a property case, demonstrating the importance of preserving arguments for appeal. In this case, the plaintiff entered into a lease with the defendants to rent commercial property owned by the defendants. The plaintiff paid the defendants $18,600, which was comprised of $9,300 for a security deposit and $9,300 for the first month’s rent. A “receipt agreement” signed by the parties stated that if the property was not ready on or before November 14, 2013, “all deposits are fully refundable.”

According to the plaintiff, after the city found out that the plaintiff planned to grow medical marijuana in the building, the defendant told the plaintiff to “forget about” the property and that he was keeping the security deposit “for his aggravation.” The defendant testified that he did not return the security deposit because the plaintiff left the lease “without even trying to do anything.” The plaintiff could not occupy the property, and the defendants refused to return the security deposit. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants breached the contract, and also that the refusal to return the security deposit constituted a conversion of his property. A jury agreed, finding the defendants converted the plaintiff’s security deposit to their own use.

On appeal, the defendants argued in part that the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff from recovering under the conversion claim. The defendants argued that the plaintiff should not have been able to receive a damages award for the conversion claim because the plaintiff did not suffer any injury, and thus should be barred under the economic loss doctrine.

Published on:

Waterfront property is widely considered to be the most desirable property in the state. And while Rhode Island has just 40 miles of coastline, when considering all inlets and tidal areas, there are closer to 385 miles of shoreline. Still, that is a limited amount of space for an area that is known for its beautiful beaches and temperate summer climate.

With the gorgeous views and access that it affords property owners, Rhode Island waterfront property is also among the most valuable. However, property owners are not the only ones who hope to benefit from the perks that waterfront property provides. Indeed, the tension between a property owner’s right to exclude others from their property and the public’s access to beaches has been a consistent theme throughout New England property law since the formation of our country.

When it comes to determining ownership rights along the coastline, Rhode Island uses a public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine essentially states that the submerged land is owned in public trust, and owners of the beach cannot prevent the public from using this land (and the water above it). The Rhode Island public trust doctrine is contained in Article I Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution, and specifically provides that the public has a right to use the beach for “fishing from the shore, the gathering of seaweed, leaving the shore to swim in the sea and passage along the shore; and they shall be secure in their rights to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the state with due regard for the preservation of their values.”

Published on:

People can decide to change their wills and trusts whenever they choose, but elderly parents can be especially vulnerable to undue influence, particularly near the end of their life. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently decided an estate administration case involving amendments made to a trust and partnership shortly before a mother’s death. The mother had three daughters and the suit was brought by one daughter against another daughter.

According to the court’s opinion, the mother created a trust agreement to distribute her assets upon her death, and also established a family limited partnership. The mother retained the general interest of the partnership, and two of her children retained an interest for the benefit of their children. She later gifted additional interests in the partnership to her children and grandchildren. Before the challenged amendments, the mother retained a 44.1 percent interest, the defendant daughter held 31.06 percent for herself and her children, and the plaintiff daughter had 24.84 percent for herself and her child. The mother eventually needed additional care and ended up moving to an assisted living facility.

Soon after, the mother tried to commit suicide in part because she said it was “the easiest way to give [her] house to [her children].” She was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, depression, and mild dementia. In the following months, she transferred her remaining interest in the partnership to the defendant. She also appointed the defendant as trustee and made the other daughters’ interest in the trust conditional on the transfer of interest in the partnership to defendant. The trust was then amended to give two daughters and a granddaughter $2,000, and the rest to the defendant. The defendant also deposited additional money her mother received into her children’s accounts.

Published on:

The income provided by a Rhode Island rental property can be a great way to increase your monthly cash flow. Not only do properly managed investment properties bring in cash each month, but they can also appreciate over the years. However, while rental property income is considered passive, there are some common issues that Rhode Island landlords find themselves needing to deal with regularly. Having a dedicated Rhode Island real estate attorney can help reduce the time it takes to resolve these inevitable issues, making sure your property stays occupied for as much of the time as possible.

Rhode Island investment properties are governed by a combination of local, state, and federal laws. Most of the important laws that landlords will encounter are state laws; however, federal laws provide for certain requirements related to the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and discriminatory renting practices. Local municipal laws may tweak how landlords must handle specific situations, such as dealing with noise ordinances, but generally govern more minor issues.

As noted above, Rhode Island state law is most important for landlords to understand. A few common areas of concern under Rhode Island’s rental property laws are:

Published on:

Evictions are an unfortunate reality that most Rhode Island landlords will likely have to do deal with at some point. It is crucial that landlords follow Rhode Island landlord-tenant laws to ensure that they do not end up tangled in a lengthy and costly legal process. Rhode Island landlord-tenant attorneys can assist in navigating the complex landlord-tenant system.

Even if a tenant is behind on rent or is otherwise violating their lease, landlords must still follow the legal process. This means that Rhode Island landlords cannot constructively evict a tenant. Constructive evictions are landlord behaviors that force a tenant to leave a property. Unlawful landlord behaviors include changing the locks, turning off utilities, emptying the property, or failing to fix essential aspects of the property.

When a tenant is 15-days past due on their rent, a landlord can begin the eviction process. Rhode Island law requires the landlord to serve the tenant with a 5-Day Demand Notice for Nonpayment of Rent. This notice must layout any violations and clearly state the amounts owed. Further, the notice must state that the owed amounts are to be paid within five days of when the landlord mailed the notice. Finally, the notice requires the landlord to inform the tenant that court action will commence if they do not pay the arrears.

Published on:

Owning a home comes with its share of responsibilities and, occasionally, legal issues can arise related to home ownership. When dealing with rental properties, however, the duties and potential legal problems that a property owner may have to deal with increases dramatically. For this reason, it is essential that anyone who owns Rhode Island rental properties has a dedicated real estate and property law attorney to whom they can look for advice and representation should the need arise.

Rhode Island landlords face a variety of legal issues, including the following:

Drafting a lease – All landlords should ensure that they have a comprehensive Rhode Island residential lease that covers all potential situations that may arise during a tenancy. Of course, leases should cover the basics such as the amount of rent, when it is due, and what the late fee is if a tenant does not pay on time. However, leases should also cover the pet policy, the landlord’s right of entry, who is responsible for repairs, and other potential points of contention.

Published on:

Family court cases often present some of the most difficult legal issues due to the high stakes involved. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently upheld the family court’s decision to terminate parental rights in a Rhode Island child custody case over a 3-year-old child.

According to the court’s opinion, when the daughter was two years old, Department of Children, Youth, and Families (the Department) filed a petition seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her daughter. The Department claimed that the daughter had been in its custody or care for twelve months or more, that the mother had been offered services, and that there was not a substantial probability that the daughter could be returned to the mother within a reasonable period of time.

Evidently, the mother had been hospitalized at least fifteen times and had attempted to commit suicide multiple times. An expert psychologist testified that he diagnosed the mother with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. On appeal, the mother argued that the family court was incorrect in finding the Department made reasonable efforts to provide the mother with services, that the mother was unfit, and that the termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the child.

Published on:

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a case that may impact a government’s ability to take privately held Rhode Island property without compensation. The issue before the Court was whether property owners are required to seek compensation in state court before filing a claim against the federal government.

According to the Court’s opinion, in 2012, a town in Pennsylvania passed a law that required that “[a]ll cemeteries . . . be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” The plaintiff had a small family graveyard on her property. In 2013, the city told her that she was violating the law passed by the town by failing to open the cemetery to the public during the day. The plaintiff brought suit against the town, arguing that the law amounted to a “taking” of her property.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states in part, “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This clause is known as the Takings Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court previously held, in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, that property owners must seek just compensation in state court before filing a takings claim under federal law. Under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, individuals can bring claims against the government for civil rights violations.

Published on:

In a recent property case before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the court considered a case involving the right to parking spaces in a Rhode Island parking lot. The case arose over parking spaces in a section of Westerly, Rhode Island.

Evidently, In 1985, JHRW LLC transferred ownership of two buildings to Seaport Studios, Inc. (“Seaport”) and at the same time entered into an agreement leasing the land under the buildings to Seaport for 99 years. The lease agreement stated in part that JHRW would lease one parking space to Seaport, that if the premises were submitted to the Rhode Island Condominium Act at any time, JHRW would deed to premises to Seaport, and that the premises were subject to building and zoning restrictions. JHRW later attempted to develop the land which included the land leased to Seaport. It was divided into three units. Unit C was developed into a parking lot, and did not include spaces for Seaport. Seaport later filed a complaint against JHRW alleging that JHRW breached the lease agreement. After a hearing, a court found that JHRW was the rightful owner of the property, and all remaining claims were dismissed.

Shortly after the resolution of the first case, JHRW filed a complaint alleging that two Seaport employees had parked in JHRW’s parking lot, and sought in part to enjoin Seaport’s employees from parking on the land within the unit C condominium. Seaport argued it was entitled to nine parking spaces, and that JHRW unlawfully blocked Seaport’s access to its parking spaces. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff ordering an injunction, enjoining the defendant from parking in spaces owned by the plaintiff, JHRW. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated the necessary elements to warrant a permanent injunction.

Published on:

In June, the state’s high court issued a written opinion in a Rhode Island landlord-tenant case discussing whether an out-of-state landlord’s failure to comply with a statutory requirement that she maintain an in-state agent entitled the tenant to all rents paid during periods of non-compliance. Ultimately, the court concluded that the statutory text and the legislative intent in passing the statute did not support the plaintiff’s claim, and entered judgment in favor of the defendant landlord.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff rented a waterfront condo from the defendant landlord for a period of about ten years. The tenancy was without incident until the tenant moved out, at which point there was a dispute over the return of the security deposit.

About two years after the tenant moved out, he filed a claim against the landlord, seeking the entire amount of rent that he paid throughout the tenancy. The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to comply with Rhode Island General Law § 34-18-22.3, which requires a “nonresident landlord” to “designate and continuously maintain an agent upon whom service may be made.” The tenant’s position was that because the landlord never designated an agent, he was not required to pay rent, but because the rent was paid during this time, he was entitled to have that money returned to him.

Contact Information