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.

When Can a Party Re-Open a Rhode Island Divorce Case?

Rhode Island requires parties to bring an action challenging a judgment or contract under seal, including final divorce settlements, within 20 years of the final judgment or contract. Courts have recognized a few exceptions to statutes of limitations, primarily when extending the time limit would be the most fair and equitable action to take. However, a defendant can also ask courts to bar a legal claim under the doctrine of laches. If the defendant succeeds, the court may prohibit a plaintiff from bringing a claim if the (1) plaintiff could have acted earlier and fails to justify the delay, and (2) the defendant has suffered damage from the delay.

For example, the Rhode Island Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court decision under the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. As the ruling explained, the parties were married in 1975 and initiated divorce proceedings in 1992. Both parties signed a property settlement agreement that distributed their marital home along with medical and life insurance coverage. Absent from the settlement, however, was any mention of the husband’s pension. In 2017, 24 years after the settlement took effect, the wife filed a motion for post-judgment relief seeking one-half interest of the marital portion of her ex-husband’s pension. She claimed that her ex-husband concealed the pension by not informing the wife or her counsel of its existence at the time of their divorce. A trial judge agreed, holding that the statute of limitations or laches did not bar the wife’s claim because she did not learn about the pension until 2017.

On appeal, the state’s high court reversed, holding that the 20-year statute of limitations barred the wife’s suit. Since the wife brought her motion 24 years after the settlement, she could no longer claim an interest in her ex-husband’s pension. Additionally, even if the wife did not know about the pension at the time of the divorce, she had ample opportunity within the 20-year period to discover what marital assets existed and seek an equitable distribution in court. Furthermore, the court declined to extend the statute of limitations for reasons of fairness or equity because it found the ex-husband did not actively conceal his pension. Rather, the court explained that “mere silence or inaction” did not amount to misrepresentation sufficient to extend the wife’s deadline to re-open the settlement. Because the statute of limitations clearly barred the wife’s suit, the court did not need to address the doctrine of laches. Ultimately, the supreme court vacated the family court’s order awarding a share of the husband’s pension to the wife.

Contact an Experienced Rhode Island Divorce Attorney

If you are going through a divorce or seeking to re-open a divorce settlement, it is crucial to have a skilled Rhode Island divorce attorney by your side. While the law may seem clear on its face, judges have broad discretion in applying the law to the facts of your case. The dedicated family law and divorce attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo have years of experience representing clients in the Rhode Island court system. Our attorneys understand the complicated divorce laws in Rhode Island and will help you secure the settlement you deserve. To discuss your case with a qualified Rhode Island family law attorney, call our offices at 401-300-4055.

The appellant in the recently decided appeal is the father of a young child born in 2018. Based upon existing neglect and termination proceedings concerning the mother’s other children, the DCYF immediately opened a neglect case in regard to the child once they learned of the birth. As part of the neglect case, a case plan was developed to allow the father to demonstrate his fitness as a parent. The father and mother were no longer a couple when the neglect case was initiated, so the DCYF assigned individual case plans to each of the parents. The father, who allegedly admitted to selling drugs in the past to a DCYF-referred therapist, was instructed to abstain from drugs and alcohol and enter into substance abuse treatment with random drug screenings as part of the case plan.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the father attempted to comply with many portions of the case plan, attending parenting classes and supervised visits with the child. The father did not, however, submit proof that he attended a substance abuse evaluation or provide drug screening results as expected. While the case plan was in effect, the father was arrested for possession of heroin and incarcerated. In response to his arrest and incarceration, the DCYF chose to pursue termination proceedings against the father. A trial was held on the matter, where the family court determined that the father was unfit to parent the child, that he was unlikely to become a fit parent in a reasonable amount of time, and that the child’s current placement in a foster home was healthy and likely to result in an adoption. Based on those findings, the family court entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights.

The father appealed the termination of his parental rights to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, arguing that the terms and conditions of his case plan were not clearly laid out and that he substantially complied with the case plan to demonstrate his fitness as a parent. The appellate court acknowledged that the father took action in compliance with the case plan and may have attempted to obtain substance abuse treatment and drug screenings, but he did not sufficiently comply with the case plan as a whole. The appellate court further found that the father’s subsequent arrest and conviction for a serious drug crime while participating in the case plan was a firm determiner as to his unfitness as a parent. As a result of the high court decision, the father’s parental rights will remain permanently terminated.

If you or a loved one has been confronted with a Rhode Island child welfare investigation or termination proceeding, the development of a case plan in conjunction with the DCYF is an important part of retaining your parental rights and regaining custody of your children. The knowledgeable family law and child welfare attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP understand how to assist our clients in developing a reasonable case plan with DCYF, and we can ensure that your compliance with the plan is relayed to the family court. With our guidance and support, you can protect your parental rights and prevent the DCYF or courts from taking your children away. If you have questions about a Rhode Island family law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

The appellant in the recently decided appeal is a man who owned property adjacent to the plaintiff’s land since inheriting it from his father. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the appellant had witnessed and been involved in the use of two parcels of land adjacent to his family’s plot, which was technically owned by the cemetery. Since the appellant could remember, his family used and maintained the two plots of land as if they were the rightful owners. Specifically, one of the land plots had been used for storing scrap metal and vehicles for nearly 30 years. The other portion of land had been maintained and landscaped by the appellant and his family for over ten years.

The owners of the cemetery filed an action in Rhode Island state court against the appellant in 2018, alleging that his use of the two plots of land was an unlawful trespass and requesting that the Court order the appellant to cease use of the property and remove the trespassing structures and other items. The appellant responded to the lawsuit, alleging that he and his family are entitled to ownership of the disputed parcels under the doctrine of adverse possession.

To prove a claim of ownership by adverse possession under Rhode Island law, a party must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence the actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive use of the property for a period of at least ten years. At trial, the judge ruled that the appellant’s storage of scrap metal and landscaping of the grounds on the two disputed parcels was not sufficient to establish the actual, open, or notorious requirements of an adverse possession claim. Based on this ruling, the plaintiffs were granted an injunction for the appellants to stop using the property and remove any possessions therefrom.

The appellants raised an appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, where the court agreed that their use of the two parcels should meet the “actual, open, and notorious” requirements for an adverse possession claim. Based upon this finding, the high court remanded the case to the trial level to determine if the other requirements for adverse possession are met. Although the appellants have not yet proven all of the necessary elements to establish themselves as rightful owners of the disputed parcels, the recent high court ruling was a victory nonetheless.

Do You Have Questions About an Adverse Possession Issue?

Whether you are attempting to establish ownership of a piece of property by adverse possession or you are seeking to prevent another from doing so on your property, the time is now to start taking action to defend your position. Strict time and use requirements are applied to adverse possession claims, and small actions can make the difference between keeping or losing the title to your property. The qualified Rhode Island real estate attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP understand how adverse possession works in the state, and we can help you make decisions to strengthen the case that disputed property belongs to you. 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.