90 A.3d 142
R.I.2014Background
- Frederick Sr. filed notices of lis pendens on four properties on Nov. 15, 2002 and those notices remained until Feb. 2009; original suit sought a resulting trust in those properties.
- Counterclaimants (executor of Frederick Jr.'s estate, widow, adopted daughter) asserted slander of title arising from the lis pendens; this Court earlier rejected the resulting-trust claim and remanded the slander-of-title counterclaim for trial. See Carrozza v. Voccola.
- At the bench trial, an appraiser testified to each property’s peak value (Sept. 2005) and value when lis pendens were removed (Feb. 2009); counterclaimants presented evidence that lis pendens made title unmarketable and prevented sales.
- Trial justice found Frederick Sr. largely not credible, concluded he filed lis pendens to recover money (malicious intent), held him and his three living children liable for slander of title, and awarded $630,000 compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, expenses and fees, and $845,000 punitive damages against Frederick Sr.
- On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed factual findings deferentially (bench trial) but reviewed legal conclusions de novo; it affirmed liability and most awards, reduced punitive damages to $422,500, and upheld that the children adopted/embraced the lis pendens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Voccola / estate) | Defendant's Argument (Carrozza Sr. / children) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lis pendens filings were malicious (slander of title malice) | Lis pendens were filed without good-faith claim to property and were used to injure/collect debt; malice established by admissions and circumstantial evidence | Frederick Sr. had a colorable, honest belief he contributed to purchases; no malice because claim was not frivolous | Aff’d: substantial evidence supports trial justice’s finding of malice and slander of title against Frederick Sr. and children (children adopted lis pendens) |
| Proper measure of compensatory damages for slander of title | Damages measured by decline from highest value during pendency (Sept. 2005) to value at removal (Feb. 2009) because lis pendens impaired vendibility | Damages should compare value at filing (Nov. 2002) to removal (Feb. 2009); absent a ready buyer, no special damages proven | Aff’d: trial justice’s method (peak during pendency to post-removal value) is appropriate to remedy loss of vendibility; $630,000 compensatory affirmed |
| When prejudgment interest accrues under §9-21-10(a) | Interest accrues from the date cause of action accrued — date lis pendens filed (Nov. 15, 2002) | Interest should run from date of injury (peak loss date Sept. 2005) used to compute damages | Aff’d: prejudgment interest accrues from Nov. 15, 2002 (date cause accrued) per statute |
| Punitive damages amount and joinder/liability of children | Punitive damages justified; children adopted lis pendens and are liable because they stood to benefit and did not renounce claims | Punitive award excessive and trial justice misconceived Frederick Sr.’s present ability to pay; children not liable because they were not parties when lis pendens filed | Mixed: punitive damages justified but reduced from $845,000 to $422,500; children liable because they affirmatively embraced the lis pendens (relation/adoption grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrozza v. Voccola, 962 A.2d 73 (R.I. 2009) (prior appeal rejecting resulting trust and remanding slander-of-title claim)
- Montecalvo v. Mandarelli, 682 A.2d 918 (R.I. 1996) (lis pendens cannot be used to collect a debt; malice may be inferred from improper use)
- Peckham v. Hirschfeld, 570 A.2d 663 (R.I. 1990) (malice for slander of title cannot be inferred from an unfounded claim unless no reasonable basis existed)
- DeLeo v. Anthony A. Nunes, Inc., 546 A.2d 1344 (R.I. 1988) (wrongful lis pendens filing to thwart development or for improper purpose supports punitive damages)
- Arnold Road Realty Associates, LLC v. Tiogue Fire Dist., 873 A.2d 119 (R.I. 2005) (elements of slander of title; malice defined as intent to deceive or injure)
- Beauregard v. Gouin, 66 A.3d 489 (R.I. 2013) (recitation of slander-of-title elements and malice standard)
- Hopkins v. Drowne, 41 A. 567 (R.I. 1898) (malice often proved circumstantially; early Rhode Island recognition of slander-of-title tort)