186 A.3d 597
R.I.2018Background
- In 2007 McLaughlin built a 40x60 garage in Tiverton that violated setback requirements; the permit relied on an incorrect site plan he prepared.
- The Tiverton Zoning Board denied his variance request in 2011; the Superior Court affirmed in 2013 and McLaughlin’s appeal to this Court was dismissed as procedurally improper.
- After final judgment on the zoning appeal, the zoning board (via its counsel) filed a March 2014 “Motion for Order to Comply” in the same Superior Court case, asking the court to order removal (or moving) of the garage and daily fines.
- The hearing justice granted that motion on April 7, 2014 (90 days to comply; $200/day), McLaughlin missed the hearing date, then sought reconsideration and was given an extended 90-day compliance period.
- Contempt fines (totaling $69,300) were imposed in August 2015; the town removed the garage in March 2016 and placed a lien for the fines.
- McLaughlin moved in May 2016 to vacate the April 7, 2014 order under Super. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and (6); the Superior Court denied the motion and McLaughlin appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars relief | McLaughlin: res judicata does not apply | Zoning Bd: prior motion to reconsider precludes later attack | Court: res judicata inapplicable; trial court invoked law-of-the-case reasoning instead |
| Whether April 7, 2014 order is void under Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or due-process usurpation | McLaughlin: Superior Court lacked jurisdiction under §45-24-62 because no separate action by town; proceedings violated due process | Zoning Bd: Superior Court had jurisdiction under §45-24-62 and McLaughlin had notice and opportunity to be heard | Court: order not void; Superior Court had jurisdiction and no plain usurpation of power or procedural-denial of due process |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief is warranted (manifest injustice) | McLaughlin: unique procedural posture — removal relief required a separate action by the town under §45-24-62; allowing enforcement via motion produced manifest injustice | Zoning Bd: motion to comply was proper; facts support removal and finality favors enforcement | Court: granted relief under 60(b)(6); §45-24-62 requires a separate action by the town and the motion-for-compliance in a closed zoning appeal was not a due proceeding; vacated the April 7, 2014 order |
| Remedy and remand | McLaughlin: vacatur of April 7, 2014 order and downstream orders | Zoning Bd: enforcement orders should stand; concerns re: town costs and lien | Court: reversed Superior Court denial of the 2016 motion to vacate; remanded papers to Superior Court (dissent voiced concern about town liability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lombardi, 773 A.2d 864 (R.I. 2001) (judgment is void only where court lacked jurisdiction or action was plain usurpation of power/violated due process)
- Zeilstra v. Barrington Zoning Bd. of Rev., 417 A.2d 303 (R.I. 1980) (enforcement under predecessor statute contemplated a separate judicial proceeding)
- In re Quigley, 21 A.3d 393 (R.I. 2011) (Rule 60(b)(4) motions reviewed de novo; such motions may be brought at any time)
- Allen v. South County Hosp., 945 A.2d 289 (R.I. 2008) (general Rule 60 review is discretionary; 60(b)(6) relief is reviewable for abuse of discretion)
- Bendix Corp. v. Norberg, 404 A.2d 505 (R.I. 1979) (Rule 60(b)(6) is narrow; relief reserved for unique circumstances to prevent manifest injustice)
- Hartt v. Hartt, 397 A.2d 518 (R.I. 1979) (distinction between absence of jurisdiction and inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction)