246 A.3d 916
R.I.2021Background
- North County Estates (Richmond, RI) was created in 1995; two recorded plats exist: map 168, slide 118B (referenced in deeds) and slide 119A (showing a private right-of-way/common driveway).
- Midwestern Homes developed the subdivision, using a common driveway system to avoid wetlands and provide access for construction and septic installation prior to severance of lots.
- Wilsons bought Lot 4 in 1996; Martins bought Lot 3 in 2013. Both access their homes via the common driveway; a southerly segment south of the Martins’ first driveway entrance became disputed.
- In 2015 the Wilsons placed a chain and erected a stockade fence and rocks that blocked the southerly exit; this altered how large vehicles (notably school buses) could turn and depart the Martins’ property.
- Martins sued in 2016 seeking permanent injunctions to remove obstructions and preserve access; trial justice found an implied easement over the disputed portion of the common driveway and enjoined the Wilsons from interfering.
- Wilsons appealed, arguing (1) parol evidence was improperly considered; (2) no implied easement existed; and (3) defendants’ counterclaims were not moot. Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Martin's Argument | Wilson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extrinsic evidence (parol evidence) | Extrinsic evidence (engineer testimony, permits, recorded slide 119A) is admissible to show intent and facts for an implied easement | Parol rule bars extrinsic evidence that alters deed terms; deeds reference only slide 118B which lacks the easement | Court: Parol rule does not bar consideration of extrinsic evidence when determining an implied easement; such evidence concerns conditions at severance, not deed terms, so admissible |
| Existence of implied easement (continuous, apparent, necessity) | Common driveway was continuously used by developer pre-severance and was reasonably necessary for access and lot development; necessity continues for safe ingress/egress | No clear, convincing evidence that the disputed southerly segment was necessary for use of Lot 3; Martins’ preferred bus maneuvering does not justify easement | Court: Trial justice did not err — credible evidence (engineer testimony, permits, maps) showed continuous/apparent use and reasonable necessity; implied easement established |
| Appropriateness of permanent injunction | Having proven an implied easement, injunction is proper to prevent obstruction of access | Injunction improper because no easement exists to support it | Court: Injunctive relief affirmed as within trial justice’s discretion once easement was found |
| Mootness of defendants’ counterclaims | N/A (plaintiffs’ prevailing) | Counterclaims for trespass and declaratory relief not moot if no easement exists | Court: Because implied easement upheld, defendants’ counterclaims were rendered moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaillancourt v. Motta, 986 A.2d 985 (R.I. 2009) (test for easement by implication focuses on facts at time of severance; necessity standard)
- Wellington Condominium Ass'n v. Wellington Cove Condominium Ass'n, 68 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2013) (implied easement requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Caluori v. Dexter Credit Union, 79 A.3d 823 (R.I. 2013) (continuous and apparent use can support an implied easement)
- Fleet Nat'l Bank v. 175 Post Road, LLC, 851 A.2d 267 (R.I. 2004) (explaining the parol evidence rule and its scope)
- Quillen v. Macera, 160 A.3d 1006 (R.I. 2017) (appellate review defers to trial justice findings unless clearly erroneous)
- Cullen v. Tarini, 15 A.3d 968 (R.I. 2011) (injunctive relief rests in trial court's discretion)