Robert Paroskie v. Linda Rhault, 241 A.3d 698

Paroskie and Rhault were in a romantic relationship from Oct. 2001 to Feb. 2009; Paroskie alleges Rhault (an heir to a Guggenheim family trust) promised lifetime security that induced him to provide companionship, services, gifts, and financial advice.
Paroskie sued on May 31, 2017 asserting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on alleged promises and his financial advice to Rhault regarding a family trust.
Rhault moved for summary judgment; Paroskie cross-moved. After hearings the Superior Court granted Rhault summary judgment on all counts (final judgment entered Sept. 10, 2018).
Paroskie filed a post-judgment motion styled as Rule 59(e) within ten days, arguing manifest errors; the hearing justice denied it as an improper attempt to relitigate the summary-judgment ruling (order entered Oct. 19, 2018).
Paroskie filed a notice of appeal on Nov. 7, 2018, which the Supreme Court held was untimely because the Rule 59(e) motion did not toll the 20-day appeal period and he did not invoke excusable neglect.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment and noted, in any event, Paroskie had failed to present competent evidence on the elements of his substantive claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Paroskie treated his post-judgment filing as tolling appeal period	Rhault: Paroskie's notice of appeal was untimely because Rule 59(e) did not apply	Appeal untimely; notice filed late and no excusable neglect shown
Validity of Rule 59(e) motion	Motion argued manifest errors in law and fact warrant amendment	Rhault: Motion sought to relitigate summary-judgment ruling and was not a proper Rule 59(e) motion	Motion was improper under Rule 59(e) (attempt to relitigate); denial proper
Effect of treating motion as Rule 60(b)	Paroskie implied relief should extend appeal time	Rhault: Even if Rule 60(b), such motions don’t toll appeal period and were not pleaded under Rule 60(b) grounds	Motion, if treated as Rule 60(b), still did not extend appeal deadline and was properly denied
Merits of substantive claims (fraud, negligent misrep., unjust enrichment)	Paroskie: Promises and his reliance created triable issues	Rhault: No competent evidence to establish elements of claims	Court observed no competent evidence supporting elements; summary judgment on merits was correct (noted in footnote)

Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley, 68 A.3d 425 (R.I. 2013) (defines ‘‘manifest error’’ for Rule 59(e) relief)
American Federation of Teachers Local 2012 v. Rhode Island Board of Regents for Education, 477 A.2d 104 (R.I. 1984) (reconsideration cannot be used merely to relitigate issues)
Peloso v. Imperatore, 434 A.2d 274 (R.I. 1981) (purpose of Rule 59(e) is to correct obvious errors in judgment)
Bogosian v. Bederman, 823 A.2d 1117 (R.I. 2003) (an error is not manifest if it is apparent only after reading the underlying decision)
Anthony v. Searle, 681 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1996) (upholds denial of Rule 59(e) when motion seeks to relitigate)
Iozzi v. City of Cranston, 52 A.3d 585 (R.I. 2012) (Rule 4(a) appeal deadline is mandatory)
Wachovia Bank v. Hershberger, 911 A.2d 278 (R.I. 2006) (mem.) (reinforces strictness of appeal time limits)