484 B.R. 540
D.R.I.2012Background
- This is a cross-appeal concerning goat island Reserved Area in Newport, RI, between the Associations and Clambakes (IDC) over trespass and possession claims stemming from a long-running dispute about development rights and control of the Reserved Area.
- IDC, Inc. and Properties are successors to Globe Manufacturing and sought to develop the Reserved Area; Tolling Agreements preserved claims but Clambakes was not a party.
- Clambakes leased the Regatta Club on the Reserved Area from 1998, began operations in late 1998, and paid rent to Properties for seven years without protest from the Associations.
- The Associations filed a state court action in 1999 challenging amendments and development rights; Clambakes was not named in that suit, and later ownership/title issues were resolved in America II (2005).
- After the 2005 Supreme Court decision, the Associations sought possession and later asserted trespass damages; the bankruptcy case followed, with a trustee eventually paying $450,000 for use and occupancy through November 2005.
- On remand, the Bankruptcy Court held Clambakes did not trespass from 1998 to 2005 due to apparent consent, and that trespass from April 8, 2005 to November 5, 2005 was covered by the $450,000 payment; the court also addressed creation of extra-record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Associations consented to Clambakes’ use from 1998–2005 | Associations contend there was no valid consent for Clambakes’ occupancy. | Consent existed by apparent conduct and inaction of the Associations during construction and operation. | Consent found; no clear error in the Bankruptcy Court’s determination. |
| Whether Clambakes trespassed from April 8, 2005 to November 5, 2005 | Trespass continued after apparent consent ended in 2005 and could bear damages beyond $450,000. | Claim period not within the evidentiary scope; damages limited to $450,000 already paid. | Period was not within the claim record; portion vacated; damages limited to $450,000 already paid. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered extra-record evidence | Extra-record Composite Exhibit P supported consent finding. | Extra-record evidence was not properly part of the record and cannot support the decision. | Consent determination not premised on late-arriving evidence; error, if any, was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Napolitano, 746 A.2d 138 (R.I. 2000) (definition of trespass)
- Ferreira v. Strack, 652 A.2d 965 (R.I. 1995) (trespass elements and consent)
- Sierra Fria Corp. v. Donald J. Evans, P.C., 127 F.3d 175 (1st Cir. 1997) (mixed questions of law and fact; standard of review for such questions)
- United States v. Young, 105 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997) (deference to trial court on findings of fact)
- Lussier v. Runyon, 50 F.3d 1103 (1st Cir. 1995) (preserved objections to extra-record evidence; waiver considerations)
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. Carp (In re Carp), 340 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2003) (standard of review for factual findings and conclusions of law)
- Thunberg v. Wallick (In re Thunberg), 641 F.3d 559 (1st Cir. 2011) (clear error standard for factual findings)
- Boroff v. Fully (In re Fully), 818 F.2d 106 (1st Cir. 1987) (standard of review for factual determinations)