140 A.3d 106
R.I.2016Background
- Goat Island South Condominium (GIS) comprises three sub-condominiums (Harbor Houses, America, Capella); Unit 18 is in Harbor Houses and its surrounding yard is a limited common element.
- The Trust (Constellation Trust) acquired Unit 18 in 2011 and built exterior walls on an existing foundation that extended beyond the unit’s 1988 footprint.
- Plaintiffs (America and Capella) sued (claims for breach of the GIS Second Amended and Restated Declaration (GIS SAR), violation of restrictive covenants, common‑law trespass, and statutory violations) seeking injunctive relief and fees; bench trial held.
- Trial court found defendants breached the GIS SAR (including §11.1(b) incorporating the statutory unanimity requirement), committed a continuing trespass, but declined to order removal of the addition and denied attorneys’ fees.
- Plaintiffs appealed (seeking mandatory removal injunction, ruling on restrictive‑covenants count, and fees); Trust cross‑appealed (challenging breach and trespass findings).
- Supreme Court: affirmed breach and trespass findings, affirmed declining to decide the restrictive‑covenants count as moot, reversed denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded for fee determination; upheld refusal to order removal given exceptional equities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Trust breached the GIS SAR by expanding Unit 18 onto limited common element | Expansion altered unit boundaries without unanimous consent; violated GIS SAR and Act | §2.3 is unenforceable; no amendment was sought so §11.1(b) does not apply | Breach affirmed: §11.1(b) unambiguously incorporates statutory unanimity requirement and was violated |
| Whether Count Three (restrictive‑covenant claim) was moot | Count Three remains live because trespass and covenant violations continue and may require removal | Trial court had already remedied via breach/trespass rulings; separate ruling unnecessary | Affirmed as moot: court properly declined to decide redundant covenant claim after contract/trespass resolution |
| Whether mandatory injunction requiring removal of the addition is required for continuing trespass | A continuing trespass generally requires mandatory removal except in exceptional cases; trial court erred by not ordering removal | Exceptional equities (good faith reliance, existing foundation, prior approvals/consent order, cost/oppression) justify withholding mandatory relief | No abuse of discretion: trial court permissibly balanced equities and withheld removal injunction given exceptional circumstances |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees under GIS SAR §11.3 | §11.3 mandates fees for enforcement of GIS SAR violations; fees are mandatory on breach | §2.3 was unenforceable so fees inappropriate; trial court had discretion to deny fees given equities | Reversed: contractual §11.3 provides a basis for fees; trial court erred by denying them; remanded to calculate reasonable fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Sisto v. America Condominium Association, Inc., 68 A.3d 603 (R.I. 2013) (statutory requirement that boundary changes require unanimous consent)
- Rose Nulman Park Foundation ex rel. Nulman v. Four Twenty Corp., 93 A.3d 25 (R.I. 2014) (continuing trespass and injunction principles; equity balancing)
- Santilli v. Morelli, 230 A.2d 860 (R.I. 1967) (owner entitled to mandatory injunction to remove unlawfully placed structure; exceptional circumstances doctrine)
- Rivera v. Gagnon, 847 A.2d 280 (R.I. 2004) (contract interpretation principles: plain meaning and de novo review)
- Rodrigues v. DePasquale Building & Realty Co., 926 A.2d 616 (R.I. 2007) (enforce unambiguous contract terms; courts must apply contract language)