312 A.3d 475
R.I.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, a group of developers (The Preserve at Boulder Hills, LLC et al.), purchased property in Richmond, RI, intending to operate a resort including shooting ranges and other amenities.
- Plaintiffs' plans were disrupted by the Town of Richmond's zoning ordinance amendments, which temporarily prohibited several intended uses, including shooting ranges, and imposed buffer zones on specific parcels.
- Eventually, permitted uses were restored by further zoning changes, but plaintiffs alleged significant financial harm due to delays, extra fees, and town conduct during the approval process.
- Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of substantive due process, tortious interference with contract and business advantage, civil liability for crimes/offenses, and civil RICO violations.
- The Superior Court dismissed all claims on the Town’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, primarily on statute of limitations grounds; both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for most claims | Due to continuing tort doctrine, limitations period should be tolled. | Tortious acts were separate events, so claims are time-barred. | Court agreed with town; actions were discrete, not continuous, so claims are time-barred. |
| Statute of limitations for RICO & §9-1-2 | Ten-year statute applies since claims aren’t torts under §9-1-25(a) | Three-year statute applies; claims amount to torts. | Court held these are tort claims under §9-1-25(a); three-year bar applies. |
| Prima facie sufficiency of due process claim | Allegations show egregious, conscience-shocking conduct by the town. | Town’s actions were within statutory/regulatory bounds. | Court found allegations did not establish egregious misconduct; claim insufficient. |
| Public duty and voluntary payment doctrines | Public duty does not apply to intentional torts; fees were paid under protest due to necessity. | Protections apply; plaintiffs paid fees knowing the facts. | Court affirmed voluntary payment doctrine and other bars; did not reach merits on all due to limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montaquila v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 288 A.3d 967 (R.I. 2023) (Rule 12(c) standard — pleadings and inferences in favor of non-movant)
- Commerce Park Realty, LLC v. HR2-A Corp., 253 A.3d 868 (R.I. 2021) (discussing statutes of limitations for §9-1-2 civil liability claims)
- Chase v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 160 A.3d 970 (R.I. 2017) (pleading standards)
- Premier Home Restoration, LLC v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 245 A.3d 745 (R.I. 2021) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc., 212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019) (explaining the continuing tort doctrine)