106 A.3d 893
R.I.2014Background
- PRA filed a 2007 complaint alleging Brown defaulted on a $100,000 relocation loan for the Silver Top Diner and Brown executed a promissory note, indemnification agreement, and UCC financing statement.
- PRA advanced $52,878.25 to Brown and claimed breach of the loan agreement.
- In 2002 PRA proposed a Commercial Rehab loan with seven conditions, including a first-priority mortgage and UCC lien, site development by PRA, and a 15-year amortization at 5%.
- Brown signed the loan documents on March 8, 2002, relocated the diner, and parties pursued plans but failed to complete construction or obtain financing.
- Evidence showed PRA handled site planning, zoning variances, and bid processes, but projects stalled amid neighbor opposition and internal disagreements.
- A jury awarded PRA $52,878.25 on its book account and Brown $112,878.25 on a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation; the trial court granted a new trial on Brown’s counterclaim, and PRA’s JML motions were denied; the appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling on appeal timing and the new-trial grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PRA’s appeal | PRA argues timely under Rule 4(a) despite notice timing | Brown contends PRA’s appeal was untimely | PRA’s appeal was untimely; the merits are not reached for PRA. |
| propriety of new trial on Brown’s counterclaim | PRA contends no rational basis for jury award; new trial proper | Brown contends verdict supported by record; no new trial needed | Trial court did not abuse discretion in granting a new trial on Brown’s counterclaim. |
| Judgment as a matter of law on the counterclaim | PRA argues no basis for JML; credibility issues remaining | Brown argues JML denial was error | Court affirmed denial of PRA’s JML motion on the counterclaim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iozzi v. City of Cranston, 52 A.3d 585 (R.I. 2012) (mandatory Rule 4(a) timing for appeals; late appeals improper)
- Wachovia Bank v. Hershberger, 911 A.2d 278 (R.I. 2006) (timeliness and review limitations for appellate notices)
- Hallenbeck v. State, 878 A.2d 992 (R.I. 2005) (timely notice of appeal as essential; procedure governs review)
- Russell v. Kalian, 414 A.2d 462 (R.I. 1980) (premature notices may be treated as timely after judgment)
- Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley, 942 A.2d 284 (R.I. 2007) (designation of judgment on appeal; standards for reviewing new-trial grant)
- Rose v. Cariello, 85 A.3d 618 (R.I. 2014) (superjuror role in evaluating motion for new trial; credibility and weight of evidence)
- Botelho v. Caster’s, Inc., 970 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2009) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment as a matter of law; de novo review)