Costa v. Silva

Citations: 996 A.2d 607; 2010 R.I. LEXIS 77; 2010 WL 2297914Docket: 2009-126-Appeal

Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; June 9, 2010; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Evelina Costa et al. v. Carol Ann Silva involves a real property dispute in Tiverton, where the defendant, Carol Ann Silva, appeals a Superior Court ruling that she lacks an easement over the plaintiffs' property and is prohibited from trespassing. Silva argues that the trial justice made two errors: failing to address her adverse possession claim and granting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs. The case centers on a disputed right-of-way known as the "Factory Privilege," which Silva sought to upgrade for better access to a property she claims to own, the "Meadow Lot." The plaintiffs filed suit after Silva allegedly trespassed and attempted to develop this right-of-way. Their complaint sought an injunction against her trespass, a declaration that she had no easement, and damages for her actions.

Prior litigation (Cory case) had already addressed Silva's claims regarding the Meadow Lot, where she sought an easement over the Factory Privilege. The court ruled against her, determining she failed to prove ownership of the Meadow Lot. The trial justice in the Cory case placed the burden on Silva to show ownership by clear and convincing evidence, which she did not satisfy, thus not addressing the easement issue. The court also noted that the adverse possession claim was not raised in the earlier trial. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, supporting the findings from the earlier case and addressing the issues presented in Silva's appeal.

Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment, claiming the issues had been previously resolved in the Cory litigation. The motion was denied by a Newport County Superior Court justice due to an incomplete record. A subsequent trial was conducted from August to October 2007, during which expert testimony was presented, including that of James Amarantes, who reaffirmed there was no evidence of Ms. Silva's ownership of the Meadow Lot. On September 6, 2007, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for summary judgment, arguing res judicata barred the current case, but the trial justice chose to hear additional witness testimonies instead. On September 20, 2007, Ms. Silva was allowed to amend her answer to include an adverse possession claim, which the trial justice later deemed "futile" due to failure to meet legal requirements. A decision issued on July 5, 2008, concluded that Ms. Silva was not the record title owner of the Meadow Lot, no easement existed against the plaintiffs' land, and while injunctive relief was granted to prevent trespassing, no compensatory damages were awarded due to lack of malice. The court did not bar Ms. Silva from pursuing her adverse possession claim but found the claim unlikely to succeed. Judgment favored the plaintiffs on August 5, 2008, and the defendant appealed the decision. The appellate court indicated it would uphold the trial justice’s factual findings unless they were clearly erroneous or failed to achieve substantial justice.

A trial justice's determination on mixed questions of law and fact is reviewed deferentially, while rulings on questions of law are reviewed de novo. For decisions regarding permanent injunctions, reversal occurs only if the trial justice misapplies the law, overlooks material evidence, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings. In the case at hand, Ms. Silva raised two main arguments on appeal: the trial justice's refusal to address the defendant's adverse possession claim and the granting of injunctive relief to the plaintiffs. The court affirmed the trial justice's rulings.

Regarding adverse possession, the trial justice deemed Ms. Silva's claim "futile" due to her failure to comply with statutory requirements and to notify the record owners of her claim. Ms. Silva argued that the trial judge erred in not ruling on her adverse possession claim, citing Sleboda v. Heirs at Law of Harris, which she interpreted as indicating that notice is not necessary in such cases. However, Sleboda also established that to benefit from adverse possession, procedural requirements must be met. Specifically, G.L. 1956 chapter 16 of title 34 outlines the process for quieting title, requiring notification to interested parties and compliance with service of process provisions. The court emphasized that statutory compliance is essential for asserting a claim of adverse possession, as affirmed in Conti v. Hines, where a dismissal occurred due to failure to comply with these procedural requirements.

The trial justice correctly refused to adjudicate Ms. Silva's claim of ownership through adverse possession due to the absence of necessary parties, specifically the record owners of the Meadow Lot, who were not notified or joined as required by law. Consequently, the merits of Ms. Silva’s adverse possession claim were not addressed. After determining that Ms. Silva was not the record owner, the trial justice granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs based on credible testimony from Mr. Amarantes, which detailed relevant conveyances. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting that the trial justice did not misapply the law or overlook material evidence. The judgment included declarations that Ms. Silva does not hold title to the Meadow Lot, has no right to trespass on the plaintiffs' land, and her claim of adverse possession is deemed futile. Additionally, the court permanently restrained Ms. Silva and her agents from trespassing on the plaintiffs' property. The defendant's argument regarding the plaintiffs' standing was waived as it was not raised during the trial. The record owners of the Meadow Lot are identified as the heirs of Joshua C. Durfee.