Butterfly Realty v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc.
93 A.3d 1022
R.I.2014Background
- Butterfly Realty obtained an express recorded easement (1985) permitting ingress/egress to a loading dock on an adjacent JR & Sons lot; the easement expressly prohibited semitrailer deliveries.
- The Butterfly building sits near the lot line so delivery trucks routinely crossed JR & Sons’s lot (often beyond the express easement) to reach the loading dock for decades.
- In 2010 JR & Sons surveyed the easement boundary after truck damage, installed concrete pylons that blocked access, and sought rent; Butterfly sued claiming a prescriptive easement (and related theories).
- At bench trial the court found use was actual, open, and notorious but concluded it was permissive (not hostile) and that Christmas-tree displays interrupted continuous use; plaintiffs appealed.
- On prior appeal this Court vacated and remanded for correct application of the hostility standard and for the trial justice to consider whether tenants’ use could be imputed to Butterfly. On remand the parties waived additional evidence.
- This Court affirms the Superior Court: Butterfly failed to prove hostile (adverse) and continuous use by clear and convincing evidence; implied permission inferred from JR & Sons’ conduct defeated prescription.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butterfly acquired an easement by prescription (hostility element) | Use by delivery trucks beyond the recorded easement was adverse and met the clear-and-convincing standard | JR & Sons’ conduct (acquiescence, moving cars, conversations, failure to object) evidenced permission, so use was permissive, not hostile | Use was permissive; Butterfly failed to prove hostility by clear and convincing evidence; prescriptive claim denied |
| Whether the Superior Court exceeded the scope of remand by reexamining hostility | Butterfly: remand forbade revisiting hostility because this Court already ruled previous standard incorrect | JR & Sons: remand permitted correction and application of proper legal standard to facts | Court: remand authorized the trial justice to apply the correct law and reconsider hostility; no exceedance of scope |
| Whether annual Christmas-tree sales interrupted the continuous 10-year use (continuity element) | Trees did not substantially block routes; deliveries continued, so continuity satisfied | Trees sometimes narrowed routes and sometimes impeded larger trucks, constituting interruption | Majority: unnecessary to decide because hostility disposition is dispositive; trial justice found interruption and court declined to reach the issue further |
| Whether tenants’ use is imputable to Butterfly | Butterfly: tenants’ longstanding use can be imputed to owner for prescriptive period | JR & Sons: (implicit) tenants’ use alone insufficient absent proof imputable to Butterfly | Trial justice did not resolve imputation on remand; Court upheld judgment on hostility ground and did not decide imputation |
Key Cases Cited
- Drescher v. Johannessen, 45 A.3d 1218 (R.I. 2012) (elements for prescriptive easement and permissive-use analysis)
- Butterfly Realty v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc., 45 A.3d 584 (R.I. 2012) (prior appellate opinion vacating judgment and directing remand)
- Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 (R.I. 2011) (prescription and deference to record owner rights)
- Hilley v. Lawrence, 972 A.2d 643 (R.I. 2009) (prescriptive-easement elements; permission/continued use discussion)
- Reitsma v. Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC, 774 A.2d 826 (R.I. 2001) (mere acquiescence or silence insufficient to constitute permission)
- Burke-Tarr Co. v. Ferland Corp., 724 A.2d 1014 (R.I. 1999) (distinguishing awareness from implied permission)
- Tefft v. Reynolds, 43 R.I. 538, 113 A. 787 (R.I. 1921) (longstanding rule that express or implied permission prevents prescriptive acquisition)