Rosario Turdo v. James Main
132 A.3d 670
| R.I. | 2016Background
- Turdo sold a 2004 GMC pickup to Main under a handwritten June 5, 2009 agreement: title/insurance remained in Turdo, Main had the right to use truck while making payments ($11,000 purchase, $500 down, $150/week).
- Turdo alleged a new/modified agreement dated December 17, 2009 (basis of her complaint) and claimed Main owed her $17,840; Main counterclaimed for conversion seeking $12,050.
- Parties stipulated to many facts (romantic relationship, sale and resale of truck for $10,000, repairs, return of truck in Feb. 2010); the December 17, 2009 document was not introduced at trial.
- After a bench (jury-waived) trial the trial justice found Turdo not credible, found Main was current on payments in Feb. 2010, concluded Turdo unlawfully repossessed the truck and converted it, awarded Main $10,000.
- Turdo moved for a new trial and later for relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and (6); the trial justice denied relief as a request for a “do‑over.” Turdo appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence/enforceability of Dec. 17, 2009 contract | Dec. 17 agreement existed and parties acted under it (payments increased) | Main testified he did not sign/agree to Dec. 17 instrument; lump payment was to avoid repossession | No enforceable Dec. 17 contract — Turdo failed to prove mutual agreement; trial justice's factual finding upheld |
| Recovery/damages under June 5, 2009 contract | Turdo argued she should have damages under the June 5 contract | Main relied on trial findings that he was compliant with June 5 terms at repossession | Court refused to award Turdo on June 5 contract — complaint alleged Dec. 17 instrument only; trial justice found Main current under June 5 |
| Conversion / possessory interest | Turdo asserted she retained title/registration and thus Main lacked possessory right | Main argued June 5 contract granted him a possessory right/right to use while payments current; repossession was wrongful | Held for Main: he had a possessory interest under June 5; Turdo’s repossession deprived him of use and was conversion; damages awarded |
| Rule 60(b)(3) & (6) relief | Turdo claimed trial perjury/misconduct (police report, timing, domestic convictions) and manifest injustice justifying relief | Main argued no fraud/misconduct warranting vacatur; trial justice credibility findings control | Denied: trial justice did not abuse discretion; alleged misconduct did not meet Rule 60(b) standards and motions were effectively a request for a do‑over |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellington Condominium Association v. Wellington Cove Condominium Association, 68 A.3d 594 (discussing deference to trial justice factual findings)
- Hernandez v. JS Pallet Co., 41 A.3d 978 (same)
- Lamoureux v. Burrillville Racing Association, 161 A.2d 213 (elements required for contract: competent parties, subject matter, consideration, mutuality)
- Narragansett Electric Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87 (defining conversion and possessory interest requirement)
- Montecalvo v. Mandarelli, 682 A.2d 918 (conversion requires plaintiff be entitled to possession at time of conversion)
- Fuscellaro v. Industrial National Co., 368 A.2d 1227 (conversion as exercise of dominion inconsistent with owner’s rights)
- Jeffrey v. American Screw Co., 201 A.2d 146 (measure of damages for conversion is market value)
- Berman v. Sitrin, 101 A.3d 1251 (standard of review for Rule 60(b) relief — abuse of discretion)
- Allen ex rel. Allen v. South County Hospital, 945 A.2d 289 (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances)