109 A.3d 395
R.I.2015Background
- In 2009 Brayman applied for preliminary approval of a minor subdivision in Hopkinton; the application checklist required proof of “property taxes” being paid.
- Brayman submitted a Municipal Lien Certificate showing real property taxes current but $45,162.97 owed in personal property taxes.
- The Town Planner refused to certify the application as complete unless Brayman paid or proved payment of all taxes due, including personal property taxes.
- Instead of paying, Brayman sued in Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel certification and later moved to add a declaratory judgment count asserting that “property taxes” meant only real property taxes.
- The trial justice dismissed the mandamus count as non‑ministerial but allowed the declaratory count to proceed; after cross‑motions for summary judgment, the trial justice denied both motions and, sua sponte, dismissed the declaratory claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the Platting Board of Review.
- Brayman appealed, arguing it had no meaningful opportunity to brief or argue the admissibility of the administrative exhaustion doctrine at the summary‑judgment stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial justice could sua sponte invoke administrative‑exhaustion to dismiss Brayman’s declaratory‑judgment claim | Brayman: court erred; exhaustion was not raised at summary judgment and Brayman had no opportunity to brief or argue it | Town Planner: dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper; prior proceedings implicated administrative‑finality principles | Court held trial justice abused discretion by invoking exhaustion sua sponte without notice or opportunity to be heard; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the mandamus claim was appropriate | Brayman: sought writ to compel ministerial certification | Lamphere: decision was discretionary, not ministerial; mandamus inappropriate | Trial justice properly dismissed the mandamus claim as discretionary (not ministerial) |
| Whether summary‑judgment rulings on meaning of “property taxes” could stand without addressing exhaustion | Brayman: merits were briefed; court should decide meaning on the papers | Lamphere: exhaustion issue barred judicial review | Court remanded so parties may address exhaustion and merits with notice (trial court’s sua sponte resolution improper) |
| Whether prior procedural history or law of the case barred raising exhaustion later | Brayman: law‑of‑the‑case should prevent renewed invocation of exhaustion | Lamphere: asserted deference to town interpretation and exhaustion | Court: law of the case may be waived due to importance; did not resolve here — left for trial court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Narragansett Electric Co., 962 A.2d 34 (R.I. 2009) (standard of review for declaratory relief)
- Sullivan v. Chafee, 703 A.2d 748 (R.I. 1997) (trial justice’s discretion in declaratory actions is reviewable for abuse)
- Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley, 942 A.2d 284 (R.I. 2007) (appeal from denial of summary judgment procedurally appropriate when court rules on unargued ground)
- Catucci v. Pacheco, 866 A.2d 509 (R.I. 2005) (court may not add or decide issues sua sponte without notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Vargas Mfg. Co. v. Friedman, 661 A.2d 48 (R.I. 1995) (reversal where trial justice sua sponte awarded relief not pleaded or argued)
- Santos v. Santos, 568 A.2d 1010 (R.I. 1990) (sua sponte rulings that change posture without notice are unfair)
- Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Assocs., Ltd. v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799 (R.I. 2000) (administrative‑finality/exhaustion discussion where substance of finality was arguably raised)
- Berkovitz v. Home Box Office, Inc., 89 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1996) (vacating sua sponte grant of summary judgment where targeted party lacked adequate opportunity to address the new ground)