296 A.3d 92
R.I.2023Background
- Newport and New Road, LLC filed a Superior Court petition on December 28, 2015 under G.L. 1956 § 44-5-26(c), challenging East Providence tax assessments for tax years 2012 (alleged illegal assessment) and 2013 (alleged excessive assessment).
- 2012 assessment: $46,838.89 in taxes based on a full and fair cash value of $2,041,800. 2013 assessment: $53,544.44 based on $2,123,500.
- Petitioner argued § 44-5-26(c) is a standalone avenue allowing the default ten-year civil statute of limitations to govern, because § 44-5-26(c) does not expressly state the three-month limitations period.
- Respondent (the city tax assessor) moved for summary judgment, asserting the three-month limitations scheme in §§ 44-5-26(a)/(b) and 44-5-27 applies to § 44-5-26(c) challenges.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for respondent, holding the three-month limitations period applied and the petition was untimely; the petitioner appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitions filed under § 44-5-26(c) are governed by the default ten-year civil limitations period or by the three-month municipal tax appeal limitations | § 44-5-26(c) omits an explicit three-month limit, so the default ten-year limitations period (§ 9-1-13) applies | § 44-5-26(c) is a proviso to § 44-5-26(a)/(b) and must be read within the statutory scheme that includes the three-month deadlines; § 44-5-27 confirms the short remedial window | The three-month limitations period governs § 44-5-26(c) petitions; petitioner’s Dec. 28, 2015 filing was untimely and summary judgment for respondent affirmed |
| Whether the canon of strict construction for taxing statutes requires resolving ambiguity in petitioner’s favor to extend the limitations period | Tax statutes are strictly construed against the government; any doubt should favor the taxpayer, supporting a longer limitations period | There is no ambiguity in the statutory framework; applying the taxing-canon to extend limitations would frustrate the statute’s purpose of finality in municipal tax assessments | The court declined to apply the canon because the statutory text and scheme were unambiguous and favored the three-month limit |
Key Cases Cited
- Borgo v. Narragansett Electric Company, 275 A.3d 567 (discussing de novo review for summary judgment)
- Waterman v. Caprio, 983 A.2d 841 (statutory interpretation: plain meaning and whole-statute reading)
- Beagan v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, 253 A.3d 858 (statutes must be read in context)
- Northgate Associates v. Shorey, 541 A.2d 1192 (policy favoring expeditious resolution of tax assessment disputes)
- Lehigh Cement Co. v. Quinn, 173 A.3d 1272 (three-month limitations for direct equity suits in tax context)
- Bluedog Capital Partners, LLC v. Murphy, 206 A.3d 694 (actions challenging tax assessments must follow § 44-5-26 procedures or § 44-5-27)
- Balmuth v. Dolce for Town of Portsmouth, 182 A.3d 576 (taxing statutes construed in favor of taxpayers, but within clear statutory scheme)