247 A.3d 131
R.I.2021Background
- In July 2007 Palermo executed two student loans from Charter One Bank (original principals $15,000 and $10,000) that later went into default. Plaintiff is Citizens Bank, N.A., which asserts it acquired the loans through corporate mergers and name changes.
- Plaintiff sued on July 13, 2017 seeking the unpaid balances. Palermo admitted signing the loan documents and defaulting but contested ownership and certain account credits.
- Palermo moved to dismiss (May 2018) asserting tribal membership jurisdictional defenses; the Superior Court denied that motion and allowed plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion.
- The Superior Court requested supplemental proof on assignment/merger and on a disputed offset; plaintiff submitted a custodian-of-record affidavit describing the merger history and acquisition of creditor rights.
- At a second hearing plaintiff agreed to (and the record reflects) a $353.46 credit; the court entered summary judgment for plaintiff for $42,093.88 (reduced from plaintiff’s claimed amount). Palermo appealed pro se.
- On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed, holding there were no genuine issues of material fact, the affidavit was sufficient, the credit was applied, and tribal sovereign immunity did not bar the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership/standing: Did plaintiff acquire the loans from Charter One such that it may sue? | Plaintiff produced a custodian-of-record affidavit recounting corporate mergers and asserting acquisition of creditor rights. | Palermo argued there remained a factual dispute (no documentation proving the transfer). | Court: No genuine issue; affidavit and merger history established plaintiff’s ownership/rights. |
| Sufficiency of affidavit: Was plaintiff’s supplemental affidavit based on proper personal knowledge? | Affidavit by records custodian attested to merger and rights based on personal knowledge. | Palermo contended affidavit lacked personal-knowledge foundation. | Court: Affidavit was adequate and uncontradicted; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Account credit/offset: Was a $353.46 (and earlier $600) offset applied to reduce the judgment? | Plaintiff acknowledged and applied the $353.46 credit; judgment amount reflects the credit. | Palermo argued the offset was not applied and also raised an additional $600 offset issue. | Court: Record shows the $353.46 was credited (judgment equals plaintiff’s claimed amount minus $353.46); no factual dispute remained about the credit. |
| Tribal sovereign immunity: Does Palermo’s claimed tribal status bar the state-court suit? | Plaintiff: Immunity does not bar suit against an individual tribal member in these circumstances. | Palermo claimed sovereign immunity as Principal Chief/Tribal Trust Manager. | Court: Tribal immunity generally does not protect individual members or officers acting outside official capacity; Palermo failed to show he acted in an official capacity or that immunity deprived the court of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc., 212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019) (de novo review and summary-judgment standard)
- Sullo v. Greenberg, 68 A.3d 404 (R.I. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and view of evidence for nonmoving party)
- Midland Funding LLC v. Raposo, 222 A.3d 484 (R.I. 2019) (nonmoving party’s burden to produce evidence creating a genuine issue)
- American Express Bank, FSB v. Johnson, 945 A.2d 297 (R.I. 2008) (duties of nonmoving party to rebut summary-judgment evidence)
- Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island, 449 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2006) (limits of tribal sovereign immunity; officers protected only when acting within official capacity)