184 A.3d 230
R.I.2018Background
- Dunn’s Corners Fire District sued BPF Realty (current owner of Bradford Industrial Park), Westerly Ambulance Corps, and Bradford Industrial Park seeking declarations and relief about fire-protection obligations to the property at 460 Bradford Road.
- Historically Bradford Fire District provided protection for Bradford village; since 2013 Bradford contracted Dunn’s Corners to assume firefighting responsibilities.
- Dunn’s Corners argued the property was not within the Bradford Fire District (and thus it had no obligation to provide services); BPF had sought to join the Bradford Fire District in 2014 but was denied.
- Westerly Ambulance continued dispatching Dunn’s Corners to alarms at the property despite Dunn’s Corners’ position and invoices for past services and attempted alarm deactivation.
- Dunn’s Corners moved for summary judgment on Count 3 seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to render services to the property; the hearing justice relied on (a) an affidavit from the Bradford Fire District moderator stating the property was never in the district and (b) a 1980 special legislative act excluding Bradford Dyeing Association parcels from the Bradford Fire District.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for Dunn’s Corners; BPF appealed raising lack of subject-matter/joiner of indispensable parties and a disputed factual question whether the property lies within the Bradford Fire District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief because not all interested parties (Bradford Fire District or Town of Westerly) were joined | BPF: Declaratory relief inappropriate because Bradford Fire District was not a party (and later argued Town of Westerly was indispensable) | Dunn’s Corners: It is a proper party because it contractually assumed Bradford’s firefighting responsibilities and may seek clarification of those duties | Court: Superior Court has jurisdiction over declaratory actions; failure to join Bradford Fire District was not fatal because Dunn’s Corners is the appropriate contracting party and BPF waived new Town argument; BPF’s perfunctory appellate briefing waived the issue |
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the property lies within the Bradford Fire District | BPF: There is uncertainty; Bradford Fire District historically responded to fires there for decades | Dunn’s Corners: Legislative exclusion and affidavit establish the property is not within Bradford Fire District | Court: No genuine issue—special act of the General Assembly excludes the property and an unrebutted affidavit affirmatively shows the property was never in the district; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re New England Gas Co., 842 A.2d 545 (R.I. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- Retirement Board of Employees’ Retirement System of Providence v. Corrente, 111 A.3d 301 (R.I. 2015) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- Newstone Development, LLC v. East Pacific, LLC, 140 A.3d 100 (R.I. 2016) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2013) (nonmoving party’s burden to show genuine issue of material fact)
- Thompson v. Town Council of Westerly, 487 A.2d 498 (R.I. 1985) (mandatory joinder provision of Declaratory Judgments Act and consequences of failing to join interested parties)
- Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314 (R.I. 2017) (issues stated without meaningful briefing are waived)
- Sardonis v. Sardonis, 261 A.2d 22 (R.I. 1970) (discussion of jurisdiction as the power to declare the law)