210 A.3d 431
R.I.2019Background
- Olsen rented a Newport waterfront condominium from DeMayo from 2005 until ~2015; DeMayo lived in Connecticut during the tenancy.
- G.L. 1956 § 34-18-22.3 required nonresident landlords to designate an in-state agent for service; it provided that "rent for the dwelling unit abates until designation of an agent is made."
- In July 2017, nearly two years after tenancy ended, Olsen sued in District Court seeking recovery of all rent paid (nearly $300,000), prejudgment interest, and costs, alleging DeMayo never filed the required agent designation.
- Olsen asserted three theories: (1) § 34-18-22.3 created a private right to retroactively recover rent (abatement/clawback); (2) civil recovery under § 9-1-2 for offenses; and (3) unjust enrichment.
- Both courts granted summary judgment for DeMayo; Olsen appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 34-18-22.3 permits retroactive recovery of past rent (abatement/clawback) | Olsen: "abates" means elimination/nullification of rent obligation, so he may recover all rent paid during noncompliance | DeMayo: statute does not authorize retroactive clawback; abatement is not a basis for recovering past rent | Held: No retroactive private cause of action; "abate" ambiguous but must be read consistently with statute's purpose; retroactive clawback would be absurd and inequitable |
| Whether § 9-1-2 (civil liability for crimes) allows recovery for landlord's statutory noncompliance | Olsen: violation of § 34-18-22.3 constitutes an "offense" making him entitled to damages under § 9-1-2 | DeMayo: noncompliance is not criminal conduct triggering § 9-1-2; in any event Olsen suffered no injury | Held: Dismissed—court doubtful § 34-18-22.3 is a crime and, regardless, Olsen alleged no damages required for recovery under § 9-1-2 |
| Whether unjust enrichment permits recovery of rent paid | Olsen: DeMayo was unjustly enriched by retaining rent during statutory noncompliance | DeMayo: Olsen received the benefit (use/possession of the condo); retention was not inequitable | Held: No—Olsen failed essential element (retention was not inequitable because he received real value: occupancy) |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Warren v. Bristol Warren Regional School District, 159 A.3d 1029 (R.I. 2017) (statutory interpretation and deference to plain meaning; examine entire statutory scheme)
- Powers v. Warwick Public Schools, 204 A.3d 1078 (R.I. 2019) (give effect to legislative purpose when construing statutes)
- Beauregard v. Gouin, 66 A.3d 489 (R.I. 2013) (summary-judgment standard: nonmoving party must show existence of essential element)
- Dellagrotta v. Dellagrotta, 873 A.2d 101 (R.I. 2005) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Mutual Development Corp. v. Ward Fisher & Co., LLP, 47 A.3d 319 (R.I. 2012) (under § 9-1-2, plaintiff must show damages to recover)