Narragansett Improvement Co. v. Wheeler, 21 A.3d 430

Background

Rhode Island created the Advisory Commission on Historical Cemeteries in 1991, with a purely advisory role to study cemeteries and make recommendations to the General Assembly.
Statutes provide that registration of historical cemeteries is done by the recorder of deeds, not the advisory commission.
Plaintiffs own property in North Smithfield and sought master-plan approval for development beginning in 2005–2006.
Archaeological testimony and town actions in 2007 identified stone mounds as potential burial sites and prompted a plan to protect areas on the property.
The planning board denied the development in August–November 2007, citing issues including historic cemeteries and unrelated regulatory concerns.
Plaintiffs sued in Superior Court (counts 1–7), and the trial court dismissed several counts as to the advisory commission; the case proceeded on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the advisory commission exceed its authority by identifying/registering cemeteries?	Narragansett asserts commission registered cemeteries; exceeded statutory authority.	Commission is advisory and cannot register cemeteries; actions lack legal effect.	Yes; commission cannot register cemeteries and lacked enforceable authority.
Were procedural due process rights violated by the commission's actions?	Plaintiff claims lack of notice/hearing before inventorying sites.	Advisory nature means no protected due process interest against the commission.	No; purely advisory body cannot implicate procedural due process rights.
Were substantive due process rights violated by the commission's advisory actions?	Actions were arbitrary and capricious, harming property rights.	As an advisory body, the commission cannot cause a substantive due process taking.	No; advisory actions not actionable for substantive due process.
Is there a viable slander of title claim against the commission?	Advisory statements caused pecuniary loss by influencing planning board.	Any planning-board denial was independent; no causation shown.	No; plaintiffs failed to prove pecuniary loss causation; dismissal affirmed.
Should the court have treated the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a Rule 56 summary judgment, given outside evidence?	Extrinsic materials were improperly considered; merits require summary analysis.	Court properly treated as summary judgment due to outside materials; appropriate standard.	De novo review; and the dismissal was proper on the merits; harmless error noted.

Key Cases Cited

In re Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline, 916 A.2d 746 (R.I. 2007) (purely advisory body lacks enforceable authority; due process not implicated)
Parenti v. Ponte, 727 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1984) (liberty interest not extended to advisory board hearings)
Velasco-Gutierrez v. Crossland, 732 F.2d 792 (10th Cir. 1984) (deferred action status not a protected liberty interest)
Franco v. Wheelock, 750 A.2d 957 (R.I. 2000) (advisory zoning actions lack standing for substantive review)
United States ex rel. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. President R.C. St. Regis Management Co., 451 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2006) (advisory opinions do not constitute final agency decisions)
Arnold Road Realty Associates, LLC v. Tiogue Fire District, 873 A.2d 119 (R.I. 2005) (malice standard for slander of title and related actions)
Keystone Elevator Co. v. Johnson & Wales University, 850 A.2d 912 (R.I. 2004) (elements of slander of title and damages framework)
DeSantis v. Prelle, 891 A.2d 873 (R.I. 2006) (summary judgment standards and evidence-based review)
Bowen Court Associates v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 818 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2003) (treatment of summary judgment on mixed pleadings and record)