Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island v. Joan M. Barbuto
158 A.3d 735
R.I.2017Background
- In 1909 five beachfront owners in Westerly recorded a plat (“1909 Plat”) and an Indenture subdividing lots, labeling a continuous southerly area as “Beach” and showing nine rights of way from Atlantic Avenue "to the Beach."
- The State (Attorney General) sued in 2012 asserting the Plattors’ recordation manifested an incipient dedication of the disputed beach area to the public and sought an easement to enjoin landowners from blocking access.
- Defendants answered, counterclaimed (including adverse possession and quiet-title defenses), and numerous adjoining landowners intervened; the trial was bifurcated to decide dedicatory intent first.
- The Superior Court, after a bench trial with extensive documentary and expert testimony, found the Plat and Indenture did not clearly and unambiguously show a manifest intent to dedicate the beach area and entered judgment for defendants.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the instruments were unambiguous against the State’s claimed dedication and that, even if ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence did not prove manifest intent to dedicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1909 Plat and Indenture manifest a dedication of the labeled “Beach” to the public | The Plat/Indenture, including rights-of-way language (“to the Beach”), clearly and unambiguously show an incipient dedication | The Plat is ambiguous or does not show intent; Plattors used explicit dedication language for rights of way but not for the Beach | The court held the Plat/Indenture do not clearly and unambiguously reflect manifest intent to dedicate the Beach area |
| Whether the recorded rights of way imply public easement over the entire Beach | “To the Beach” means implied public easement extending across the Beach | Rights of way grant passage to the beach but do not convey a public easement over the whole Beach; Plattors knew how to dedicate and did so only for ROWs | Court treated comments about ROWs as dicta re: scope but accepted that ROWs were explicitly dedicated; they did not support an easement over the entire Beach for public use |
| Proper evidentiary standard and role of extrinsic evidence when a plat is unambiguous | Even if instruments ambiguous, extrinsic evidence (deeds, historical usage, surveys) shows manifest intent to dedicate | Deeds, reservations (seaweed rights), and many conveyances naming the Atlantic Ocean support defendants’ interpretation; if Plat is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence cannot vary it | Court applied manifest-intent standard; because it found the Plat/Indenture unambiguous, it did not admit extrinsic evidence to vary them; alternatively, even assuming ambiguity, extrinsic evidence did not show manifest intent to dedicate |
| Whether the trial justice misapplied incipient-dedication doctrine (limited to roadways) | Incipient dedication can apply to non-road features; Plat labeling of continuous Beach suffices as incipient dedication | Incipient-dedication presumption is strongest for streets; the Plattors used different line styles and explicit language for ROWs but not for the Beach | Court rejected the claim that the doctrine was improperly narrowed; it affirmed that mere labeling of "Beach" without explicit dedication language or other clear indicia is insufficient to infer dedication |
Key Cases Cited
- Newport Realty, Inc. v. Lynch, 878 A.2d 1021 (R.I. 2005) (incipient dedication principles and role of plats)
- Robidoux v. Pelletier, 391 A.2d 1150 (R.I. 1978) (manifest intent required for dedication; plat interpretation principles)
- Drescher v. Johannessen, 45 A.3d 1218 (R.I. 2012) (intent to dedicate not lightly presumed; standards for proving dedication)
- Donnelly v. Cowsill, 716 A.2d 742 (R.I. 1998) (filing and acceptance of plat ordinarily suffice for roadway dedications)
- Warwick Sewer Authority v. Carlone, 45 A.3d 493 (R.I. 2012) (application of incipient dedication to non-road parcels where plat language is clear)
- Volpe v. Marina Parks, Inc., 220 A.2d 525 (R.I. 1966) (evidence must reasonably tend to demonstrate intent to dedicate)
- Nye v. Brousseau, 992 A.2d 1002 (R.I. 2010) (distinguishing question of law about boundaries from factual determination of where boundaries lie)