126 A.3d 482
R.I.2015Background
- Curreri rented a house from Robert and Linda Saint and alleges mold made the home uninhabitable and damaged her personal property. She was also behind on rent.
- The Saints sued to evict Curreri in District Court; the parties entered a signed stipulation settling the eviction. The stipulation required the landlords to waive past-due rent and to arrange remediation (SERVPRO) and remediation/replacement of tenant-identified, mold-damaged property.
- Curreri later sued the Saints in Superior Court in negligence, claiming the Saints failed to maintain the premises and that their negligence caused mold damage to her belongings.
- Defendants moved in limine to exclude the District Court stipulation and moved for summary judgment arguing Curreri could not prove causation. Curreri asked the Superior Court to take judicial notice of the stipulation under Rule 201 rather than treat it as inadmissible settlement evidence under Rule 408.
- The hearing justice excluded the stipulation as settlement/compromise evidence and granted summary judgment because Curreri conceded she had no other evidence on causation. Curreri appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court should have taken judicial notice of the District Court stipulation | Curreri: stipulation is a judicially noticeable court record proving defendants admitted mold and obligation to remediate (thus establishing causation) | Saints: stipulation is a settlement/compromise and not an admission of causation; inadmissible under Rule 408 | Court: No — stipulation does not establish defendants caused the mold and may be excluded as settlement evidence; judicial notice does not convert it into proof of causation |
| Whether the stipulation could be used as evidence of liability/causation in the negligence action | Curreri: stipulation shows defendants admitted damage and obligation to remediate, proving causation | Saints: stipulation resolves eviction dispute and is not an admission of liability for causing mold; Rule 408 bars use to prove liability | Court: Stipulation does not establish causation and is properly excluded for that purpose |
| Whether exclusion of the stipulation compelled summary judgment | Curreri: exclusion deprived her of the only evidence of causation, so summary judgment was improper | Saints: even without stipulation, Curreri conceded no other causation evidence exists | Court: With stipulation excluded and no other evidence of causation, summary judgment for defendants was proper |
| Standard of review for evidence rulings and summary judgment | Curreri: trial court erred as a matter of law in excluding a judicially noticeable record | Saints: rulings were within trial court discretion and supported by law | Court: Evidence admissibility is discretionary; summary judgment reviewed de novo and was properly granted given lack of causation evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sisto v. American Condominium Association, Inc., 68 A.3d 603 (statement of de novo review for summary judgment)
- Zanni v. Voccola, 13 A.3d 1068 (standards for affirming summary judgment)
- Classic Entertainment & Sports, Inc. v. Pemberton, 988 A.2d 847 (summary judgment standard)
- Gushlaw v. Milner, 42 A.3d 1245 (burden on nonmoving party to show material factual dispute)
- McGarry v. Pielech, 108 A.3d 998 (admissibility of evidence committed to trial justice's discretion)
- In re Michael A., 552 A.2d 368 (on judicial notice of court records and what aspects are indisputable)
- Votolato v. Merandi, 747 A.2d 455 (settlement agreements generally inadmissible to prove liability under Rule 408)
- Medeiros v. Sitrin, 984 A.2d 620 (elements of negligence claim)
- Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461 (need for causation evidence to survive summary judgment)