Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Resmini v. Kilduff Builders
Citations: 661 A.2d 964; 1995 R.I. LEXIS 206; 1995 WL 476161Docket: No. 94-379-Appeal
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; June 2, 1995; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on May 23, 1995, regarding the appeal by plaintiffs Wayne G. Resmini and Donna A. Resmini against a Superior Court order that granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Town of Scituate, under Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs had previously contracted with Kilduff Builders in 1986 for a four-bedroom house but faced issues with their Individual Sewer Disposal System (ISDS) and sued several parties, including the Town. The plaintiffs claimed the town's building inspector was negligent in issuing a building permit for a four-bedroom house given that the Department of Environmental Management had only approved an ISDS for a three-bedroom house. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that because a town clerk signed the builder's name on the permit, the town acted as the builder’s agent and thus owed a special duty to the plaintiffs. The court disagreed, referencing its earlier decision in Quality Court Condominium Association v. Quality Hill Development Corp., where a specific duty was owed due to the building inspector's extensive involvement and knowledge of violations. In this case, the court found no evidence that the building inspector was aware of any wrongdoing or threats to the plaintiffs. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the town allowed the builder to start construction using a septic application from another lot and that the building inspector altered this application after the plaintiffs signed their contract. However, these allegations were not presented to the trial justice or supported by evidence. As a result, the court ruled the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to counter the summary judgment motion. The appeal was denied, and the judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed, with the case remanded for further proceedings. Justices Murray and Bourcier did not participate in the decision.