Dorrance H. Hamilton v. Carol C. Ballard
161 A.3d 470
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Ballards and Hamilton (predecessor to SVF) co-owned historic Edgehill; a court-ordered partition (2002) assigned the Swiss Village to Hamilton and the Manor House + Carriage House to the Ballards, and granted the Ballards a 15-foot interior access easement across the Swiss Village to connect the Manor House property to Lot No. 20.
- The partition incorporated a commissioner’s recommendation that the easement be “personal to such owners … for so long as the owners of the Carriage House parcel and/or Manor House parcel also retain an ownership interest in lot #20.” A Waterman survey fixed the easement location and a 15-foot width.
- Parties disputed road construction and gate width. SVF built a farm-type dirt road (often narrower than 15 feet) and installed 10-foot gates; Ballards claimed interference and sought injunctive relief (count 7 of counterclaim).
- After multiple hearings and site views, a 2007 Superior Court order found SVF’s constructed road provided reasonable access and that 10-foot gates did not impinge on the Ballards’ reasonable use. No timely appeal followed.
- In 2014 a different Superior Court justice granted SVF summary judgment on count 7, relying on the earlier 2007 rulings; the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded, holding the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine was misapplied and that mootness (extinguishment of the easement by the ownership change) required further factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Ballards’ Argument | SVF’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 grant of summary judgment on count 7 was proper | The 2007 order was interlocutory, factual findings from a view are not binding, circumstances changed, and law‑of‑the‑case should not bar full consideration in 2014 | 2007 order resolved access issues; law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation and supports summary judgment | Court: 2014 justice erred to apply law‑of‑the‑case to grant summary judgment because (1) 2007 ruling was interlocutory in context and (2) the question was not presented in an identical manner; vacated and remanded |
| Whether law‑of‑the‑case barred reconsideration of the easement/gates dispute | Law‑of‑the‑case inapplicable because earlier ruling was interlocutory, factual record differed, and evidentiary development was precluded | Law‑of‑the‑case applies to preclude relitigation of issues decided in 2007 | Court: Law‑of‑the‑case did not properly apply; interlocutory rulings do not bind on a later dispositive summary judgment presented in a different manner |
| Whether the easement terminated (mootness) when common ownership ceased | Easement’s intended condition remained satisfied in substance (family ownership) and permanent alienation to unrelated third party required to extinguish | Easement contained express condition subsequent—terminates if Manor House owners cease to also own Lot No. 20—so conveyance extinguished easement and appeal is moot | Court: Mootness is a threshold justiciability issue; because record was undeveloped on extinguishment, court declined to decide extinguishment and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether findings from a judicial view constitute admissible evidence binding later courts | Ballards: view-based findings are not proper evidentiary basis to preclude further record development | SVF: 2007 view and hearings established facts that should control | Court: Views are not a substitute for a full evidentiary record on a later dispositive motion; reliance on such findings to grant summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Tri-Town Construction Co. v. Commerce Park Associates 12, LLC, 139 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Sullo v. Greenberg, 68 A.3d 404 (R.I. 2013) (summary-judgment principles)
- Plunkett v. State, 869 A.2d 1185 (R.I. 2005) (summary judgment is an extreme remedy and standards for granting)
- National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Standen Contracting Co., 942 A.2d 968 (R.I. 2008) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Carlson v. Town of Smithfield, 723 A.2d 1129 (R.I. 1999) (summary-judgment review standards)
- Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223 (R.I. 1996) (opposing party’s burden to show disputed material fact)
- Goodman v. Turner, 512 A.2d 861 (R.I. 1986) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and its purpose)
- State v. Infantolino, 355 A.2d 722 (R.I. 1976) (description of law‑of‑the‑case: refrain from disturbing prior interlocutory ruling when same question is presented identically)
- Rhode Island Hospital Trust Nat’l Bank v. National Health Foundation, 384 A.2d 301 (R.I. 1978) (law‑of‑the‑case may bar successive summary-judgment motions)
- Jackvony v. Poncelet, 584 A.2d 1112 (R.I. 1991) (easement may terminate by expiration/condition subsequent)
- Grady v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 962 A.2d 34 (R.I. 2009) (easement scope is determined from the writing; unambiguous terms control)