181 A.3d 27
R.I.2018Background
- Long-running dispute between Carol and A.L. Ballard (the Ballards) and SVF Foundation (successor to the Dorrance H. Hamilton Trust) over the Edgehill property after a 2002 partition judgment dividing the land and allocating a jointly owned sewer pump station and main lines.
- Partition awarded the Foundation ~17.172 acres (Swiss Village) and the Ballards 11.478 acres (Manor House and Carriage House); Lot 20 is an adjacent undeveloped parcel owned by the Ballards.
- Commissioner’s report and the partition judgment addressed the sewer lines and allocated lateral lines to individual lot owners; the commissioner expressly declined to decide whether Lot 20 could use the sewer system in the future.
- Ballards repeatedly sought to connect Lot 20 to the joint sewer system; Foundation sought injunctions to prevent expansion. Trial justice granted summary judgment enjoining Ballards from connecting Lot 20 to the sewer system.
- Ballards relocated the Carriage House driveway and removed pillars/gate; Foundation agreed to relocation conditioned on installing a fence. Ballards later sued to enjoin the fence; trial justice granted summary judgment that the Ballards abandoned the driveway easement.
- On the eve of trial the Ballards tried to revive or recharacterize an accounting claim (originally tied to alleged pre-partition waste). At a July 9, 2015 on-the-record pretrial conference Ballards’ counsel stated he would dismiss the accounting claim; two days before trial the Ballards attempted to press a different accounting theory. The trial justice enforced the on-the-record dismissal. Ballards’ Rule 11 sanctions motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Ballard's Argument | Foundation's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lot 20 has an express or implied easement (by necessity or implication) to connect to the Edgehill sewer system | Partition language stating unspecified pre-existing utilities are easements and presence of a manhole/lateral pipe on Lot 20 created an easement | Partition and commissioner expressly excluded Lot 20 from sewer access; mere pipe/manhole presence does not create an easement; no deed grant | No easement; as a matter of law Ballards cannot connect Lot 20 to the sewer system; summary judgment for Foundation affirmed |
| Whether the driveway easement persisted after Ballards relocated driveway and removed pillars/gate | They intended to retain the easement for landscaping/foot/vehicular use despite relocating driveway | Relocation eliminated necessity and constituted abandonment; Foundation relied on Ballards’ acts and correspondence showing agreement to remove driveway surface from Foundation property | Easement of necessity ceased when no longer necessary; Ballards’ decisive acts amounted to abandonment as a matter of law; summary judgment for Foundation affirmed |
| Whether the trial justice erred in dismissing the Ballards’ accounting counterclaim based on the on-the-record pretrial stipulation | The dismissal was not valid because there was no written stipulation and Ballards later sought to recast the claim (post-partition sewer expenses) | Ballards’ counsel expressly dismissed the accounting claim on the record at the pretrial conference; oral stipulation is valid; Ballards are bound by prior discovery responses describing the original accounting theory | Dismissal was valid; the trial justice properly enforced the on-the-record dismissal; Ballards’ attempt to revive/alter the claim was barred |
| Whether denial of Ballards’ Rule 11 sanctions motion (against Foundation’s counsel and the trial justice) was improper | Foundation’s counsel fraudulently represented a settlement; providing the transcript to the court constituted impermissible ex parte communication | No showing of bad faith or Rule 11 violation; transcription provided to the court does not constitute improper ex parte communication; no basis for sanctions | Denial of sanctions was within trial justice’s discretion and not an abuse; Rule 11 relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullo v. Greenberg, 68 A.3d 404 (R.I. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Fusaro v. Varrecchione, 150 A. 462 (R.I. 1930) (easement of necessity ends when necessity ceases)
- Sweezy v. Vallette, 90 A. 1078 (R.I. 1914) (necessity termination and abandonment principles for ways of necessity)
- Charles C. Gardiner Lumber Co. v. Graves, 8 A.2d 862 (R.I. 1939) (acts showing intent to abandon an easement can extinguish it as a matter of law)
- Fogarty v. Palumbo, 163 A.3d 526 (R.I. 2017) (existence of contract can be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment)
- Filippi v. Filippi, 818 A.2d 608 (R.I. 2003) (affirming summary judgment where contract elements were not established)
- Michalopoulos v. C&D Restaurant, Inc., 847 A.2d 294 (R.I. 2004) (standard for appellate review of sanctions rulings)
- State v. Barros, 148 A.3d 168 (R.I. 2016) (raise-or-waive rule for appellate review)