Christine Adams v. Santander Bank, N.A., 183 A.3d 544

Santander conducted a foreclosure sale of a Pawtucket property on February 19, 2013; Christine Adams sued in 2014 claiming improper foreclosure and lack of required notice.
Christine obtained a temporary restraining order in 2014; she later narrowed her suit to statutory notice noncompliance under R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 34-27-4(a) and 34-27-4(b).
Plaintiffs amended to add George Adams (mortgagor) after it was shown he executed the mortgage; discovery proceeded.
Santander moved for summary judgment in July 2016, submitting evidence (certified-mail letters to George and Christine and publication affidavits) showing compliance with the statutory notice requirements.
Plaintiffs filed a sparse one-page opposition asserting (without evidentiary support) that genuine issues remain and discovery was ongoing; they produced no counter-evidence.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Santander; plaintiffs appealed but raised new arguments on appeal (contractual notice provision and Treasury Regulations) that were not preserved below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Santander failed to give the statutory pre-foreclosure notices required by §§ 34-27-4(a) and 34-27-4(b)	Santander did not publish notice for three weeks and did not send certified-mail notice within thirty days to required parties	Santander presented certified-mail records and a publication affidavit showing compliance	Summary judgment for Santander — no genuine issue of material fact; plaintiffs offered no competent contrary evidence
Whether plaintiffs’ vague claims and ongoing-discovery assertion suffice to defeat summary judgment	Ongoing discovery and anticipated depositions create factual disputes precluding summary judgment	Once Santander met its burden, plaintiffs had to present specific competent evidence of a dispute; they did not	Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions insufficient; summary judgment appropriate
Whether Santander violated a contractual (mortgage) notice provision	Plaintiffs argued mortgage notice provision also required compliance (first raised on appeal)	Santander argued issue was not raised below and therefore waived	Waived — issue not pleaded or raised in opposition and thus not preserved for appeal
Whether Santander violated Treasury Regulations (raised on appeal)	Plaintiffs asserted noncompliance with Treasury Regulations	Santander disputed relevance and preservation	Waived and undeveloped — raised first on appeal and not meaningfully briefed, so court declined to consider

Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527 (R.I. 2013) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment and nonmoving party burden)
Swain v. Estate of Tyre, 57 A.3d 283 (R.I. 2012) (materials considered on summary judgment)
Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2013) (nonmoving party must produce competent evidence of factual dispute)
Estate of Giuliano v. Giuliano, 949 A.2d 386 (R.I. 2008) (caution in granting summary judgment but confirms standard)
McGovern v. Bank of America, N.A., 91 A.3d 853 (R.I. 2014) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts creating a genuine issue)
Riel v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co., 45 A.3d 561 (R.I. 2012) (summary judgment procedural principles)
Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 160 A.3d 975 (R.I. 2017) (raise-or-waive rule on appeal)
Bellevue-Ochre Point Neighborhood Ass'n v. Preservation Soc'y of Newport County, 151 A.3d 1223 (R.I. 2017) (risk of not ordering transcript for appellate record)
Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Commission, 788 A.2d 1129 (R.I. 2002) (issues not meaningfully briefed are waived)