Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island v. Joan M. Barbuto
15-195
| R.I. | May 2, 2017Background
- In 1909 five beachfront owners (the Plattors) recorded a "Plan of Pleasant View Beach Lots" and an Indenture dividing lots along Atlantic Avenue, labeling a continuous southerly area "Beach" and carving nine rights-of-way from Atlantic Avenue "to the Beach."
- The State (Attorney General) sued the current landowners in 2012 seeking a public easement over the disputed beach area, alleging the 1909 Plat/Indenture constituted an incipient dedication.
- The Superior Court conducted a bench trial focused on whether the Plattors manifested intent to dedicate (phase one); the trial justice found no dedication and entered judgment for defendants.
- Key factual disputes concerned whether the Plat’s "line of foot of bank" was a boundary, whether lot lines extended to the ocean, and whether the Indenture’s phrase "to the Beach" created public beach rights.
- The trial justice held (1) the Plattors lacked power to dedicate land they did not own across multiple fee strips, and (2) the Plat and Indenture, read together, did not clearly and unambiguously show manifest intent to dedicate the beach; he alternatively found extrinsic evidence did not establish intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1909 Plat/Indenture manifestly intended to dedicate the beach to the public | The Plat’s labeling of a continuous "Beach," the rights-of-way "to the Beach," and historical context show an offer to dedicate | The Plat is ambiguous or shows geographic features (line of foot of bank); deeds and reservations negate a public dedication | Court held no clear and unambiguous manifest intent to dedicate; judgment for defendants |
| Whether incipient dedication doctrine applies to the beach area (not a road) | Doctrine extends to non-road dedications where intent is shown; Plat/Indenture suffice | Incipient dedication presumption is stronger for streets; here the instruments lack the necessary clarity | Court applied doctrine but found the instruments did not supply the needed clarity; no dedication |
| Role of extrinsic evidence if Plat is unambiguous | Extrinsic evidence (deeds, historical use, surveys) supports dedicatorial intent | If Plat is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence cannot alter recorded instrument; deeds show private assertions of boundary | Court found Plat unambiguous and therefore declined to rely on extrinsic evidence; alternatively, extrinsic evidence did not establish intent |
| Proper standard/burden to prove incipient dedication | State: preponderance; intent must be shown by evidence that reasonably tends to demonstrate it | Defendants: require clear and convincing proof | Court emphasized manifest intent standard (not lightly presumed); applied deferential factual review to trial justice’s findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cote v. Aiello, 148 A.3d 537 (R.I. 2016) (deference to trial-justice factual findings in nonjury cases)
- Drescher v. Johannessen, 45 A.3d 1218 (R.I. 2012) (intent to dedicate will not be lightly presumed)
- Robidoux v. Pelletier, 391 A.2d 1150 (R.I. 1978) (plat interpretation and inquiry into dedicatory intent)
- Newport Realty, Inc. v. Lynch, 878 A.2d 1021 (R.I. 2005) (incipient dedication presumption from recorded plats with streets)
- Donnelly v. Cowsill, 716 A.2d 742 (R.I. 1998) (filing and acceptance of a plat often suffices for roadway dedication, but not automatically)
- Warwick Sewer Authority v. Carlone, 45 A.3d 493 (R.I. 2012) (requirements for incipient dedication and public acceptance)
- Volpe v. Marina Parks, Inc., 220 A.2d 525 (R.I. 1966) (evidence required to demonstrate intent to dedicate)
- Nye v. Brousseau, 992 A.2d 1002 (R.I. 2010) (distinguishing legal question of parcel boundaries from factual boundary determination)