Narragansett Electric Co. v. Saccoccio
2012 R.I. LEXIS 50
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Narragansett Electric was assessed by Cranston at $23,290,814 for tangible personal property with first due date July 15, 2008.
- Narragansett filed an appeal with Cranston’s Office of Tax Assessment in October 2008, contending FMV was $16,917,909.
- Municipal bodies denied the appeal; Narragansett then filed a Superior Court complaint on January 27, 2009 naming Cranston officials.
- Defendants answered, asserting lack of jurisdiction due to untimely tax appeal filing under § 44-5-26(a).
- The Superior Court converted defendants’ motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion and held untimeliness voids jurisdiction, excluding Cranston’s five-day processing period.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court later vacated and remanded, finding the issue was whether the trial court should exercise jurisdiction and that Rule 9(c) waivers affected the defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness as a condition precedent to § 44-5-26(a)? | Narragansett contends timeliness is a condition precedent to claims under § 44-5-26(a). | Defendants argued lack of timely filing deprives the court of jurisdiction. | Timeliness is a condition precedent to § 44-5-26(a). |
| Waiver of untimeliness defense under Rule 9(c)? | Defendants failed to plead noncompliance with a condition precedent specifically under Rule 9(c). | Defendants asserted lack of jurisdiction generally. | Defendants waived the untimeliness defense for lack of Rule 9(c) specificity. |
| Whether the Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction or should exercise it? | Court had subject matter jurisdiction and should hear the appeal under § 44-5-26. | Without timely filing, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. | Court had subject matter jurisdiction but was to exercise it rather than dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunes v. Marino, 707 A.2d 1239 (R.I. 1998) (timeliness as a condition precedent to a statutory claim)
- Trainor v. Grieder, 23 A.3d 1171 (R.I. 2011) (condition precedent should be waived if not insisted upon)
- Mesolella v. City of Providence, 508 A.2d 661 (R.I.1986) (distinction between appropriate exercise of power and absence of power)
- Marcotte v. Harrison, 443 A.2d 1225 (R.I.1982) (Rule 9(c) specificity requirement for defenses)