Docouto v. Blue Water Realty

310 A.3d 360

Lourenco DOCOUTO

v.BLUE WATER REALTY, LLC, et al.

No. 2023-79-Appeal. (PC 21-1072)

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 11, 2024

Providence County Superior Court, Associate Justice R. David Cruise

Stephen P. Levesque, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Thomas M. Dickinson, Esq., for Defendants.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Robinson, for the Court.

The plaintiff, Lourenco DoCouto,¹ appeals from a September 22, 2022 final order of the Superior Court, granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, Blue Water Realty, LLC (Blue Water) and Louis Bachetti. The plaintiff contends before this Court that (1) the hearing justice erred in determining that the doctrine of res judicata applied; (2) the hearing justice erred in dismissing Mr. DoCouto’s 2020 complaint with prejudice for failure to have timely served defendants; (3) the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. DoCouto’s equitable claims in the eviction proceedings; and (4) the amount of compensatory damages sought by the plaintiff exceeded the $10,000 statutory maximum for District Court jurisdiction with respect to a case of this nature.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

I Facts and Travel²

[1] This appeal involves property located at 389 Glenwood Avenue in Pawtucket, Rhode Island (the Property). In both complaints filed in Superior Court (discussed infra), plaintiff alleged that he purchased the Property in 2004 and that he later transferred the Property to a "now revoked Rhode Island entity, Brava Properties, LLC, in 2008." According to plaintiff, Blue Water "attempted" to take title to the Property in 2012 pursuant to a foreclosure sale. The plaintiff alleged that he filed for bankruptcy in 2012 to prevent Blue Water from being able to foreclose on the Property. The plaintiff further alleged that, in October of 2012, he "entered into an agreement entitled Residential Lease and Option to Purchase Agreement, which among other things, gave the Plaintiff the option to purchase the [P]roperty for the consideration of $136,000.00." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The plaintiff alleged that his attempt to exercise said option was thwarted by defendants and that, for that reason, he commenced an action in Providence County Superior Court in 2015 to compel the sale of the Property.

The plaintiff alleged that a new option agreement, entitled "Option to Purchase Agreement," was signed in 2015. According to the complaint, the new option agreement contained an agreed-upon sale price of $175,000, with a closing date scheduled for November 18, 2016. It was plaintiff’s allegation that the closing was postponed due to the "existence of minimum housing violations on record." However, according to plaintiff, the "title issues" were eventually resolved, but defendants never allowed him to exercise his option regarding purchase of the Property.

The plaintiff further alleged that, during the period from 2012 to 2019, he and defendant Louis Bachetti had a "separate agreement," wherein plaintiff "provided maintenance and property management services" at the Property as well as at other properties owned by Mr. Bachetti. The plaintiff alleged that Mr. Bachetti never paid him for the services he rendered during that time period.

In October of 2019, Mr. Bachetti, "as agent for Blue Water Realty LLC," filed a complaint for eviction in the Sixth Division of the District Court because Mr. DoCouto had remained in possession of the rented premises, which were listed as "389 Glenwood Avenue 3rd Floor," subsequent to "the period set forth" in the notice of termination of tenancy. Thereafter, Mr. DoCouto filed an answer and a counterclaim, which contained the following counts: (1) "breach of contract as to exercise of option;" (2) "breach of contract re: maintenance and rent collection;" (3) "fraudulent inducement;" and (4) "utility bills."

In the counterclaim, Mr. DoCouto requested that Mr. Bachetti be ordered to comply with the terms and conditions of the Option to Purchase Agreement and that the court compel the sale of the Property to him. The counterclaim further contended that, in the event that Mr. Bachetti was unable or unwilling to sell the Property, Mr. DoCouto should be allowed to remain on the Property and be compensated for breach of the Option to Purchase Agreement. Additionally, Mr. DoCouto sought payment for services allegedly provided by him to Mr. Bachetti, and he sought permission to occupy the Property until said payment was made or Mr. Bachetti "complie[d] with said Option to Purchase Agreement." Mr. DoCouto also demanded that Mr. Bachetti be required to pay amounts owed to National Grid for electric utilities. Moreover, Mr. DoCouto sought damages for unlawful and fraudulent inducement. It was Mr. DoCouto’s assertion that "the jurisdiction and equitable powers granted to [the District Court] by the Rhode Island Landlord-Tenant Act allow it to issue equitable and monetary awards in excess of the normal jurisdiction" amount.

A non-jury trial took place on February 25, 2020; and, on that same day, judgment entered in favor of Mr. Bachetti for possession and for damages in the amount of $8,026. Moreover, Mr. DoCouto’s counterclaim was dismissed. On February 28, 2020, the parties executed a stipulation, in which they agreed that: (1) the execution on the judgment would be stayed until July 1, 2020; (2) Mr. DoCouto would make three monthly rental payments of $1,300 (for the months of April, May, and June of 2020); (3) Mr. DoCouto would execute a release of the lis pendens which he had recorded on the Property; and (4) Mr. DoCouto would "waive any and all claims past and present" against Mr. Bachetti. Mr. DoCouto did not appeal the District Court judgment nor the dismissal of his counterclaim.

In October of 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint in Providence County Superior Court against defendants (the 2020 complaint). Although plaintiff’s 2020 complaint indicated that he would be "sending a copy" of the complaint to defendants, it is clear from the record that the complaint was in fact never timely served on defendants.

On February 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a complaint, almost identical to the 2020 complaint, alleging the following four counts: (1) breach of contract as to. the Option to Purchase Agreement; (2) quantum meruit in relation to the services provided by plaintiff; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) fraud (the 2021 complaint).³ On April 21, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss Mr. DoCouto’s 2020 and 2021 complaints. In their motions to dismiss, defendants contended that Mr. DoCouto’s 2020 complaint should have been dismissed for failure of service. Additionally, defendants asserted that both the 2020 and 2021 complaints were barred by the doctrine of res judicata in that Mr. DoCouto’s claims had been heard and decided in the eviction proceeding initiated by defendants in the District Court in 2019.

A hearing on defendants’ two motions to dismiss took place in the Superior Court on August 31, 2022. In support of their motions to dismiss, defendants asserted that plaintiff’s Superior Court actions were barred by res judicata in that the same parties and the same issues had been adjudicated in the eviction proceeding, wherein the District Court entered final judgment in favor of Mr. Bachetti and also dismissed Mr. DoCouto’s counterclaim. At the August 31, 2022 hearing in the Superior Court, Mr. DoCouto, appealing pro se, contended: "I was evicted unfairly without knowing what’s going on because I have a transcript from [the] beginning that my lawyer was talking to him without my knowledge." At the August 31, 2022 hearing, counsel for defendants sought to explain the context as follows:

"At the District Court hearing on the motion to release the lis pendens, Mr. DoCouto had made numerous allegations that [his attorney] and I basically conspired to ensure that the judgment remained in effect and he had no ability to vacate that judgment, or to file any motions to fight that judgment, or to proceed with his allegations that he’s the owner of the property."

As for the stipulation, counsel for defendants indicated that he wrote that document and went through it line-by-line with Mr. DoCouto, explaining to him what would happen when they went in front of the hearing justice. He added that he explained to Mr. DoCouto "what the word execution means" and that "a piece of paper * * * can be obtained to move you out if you do not vacate by this date, and the date on that was July 1st * * *."

At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing justice rendered a bench decision. The hearing justice summarized the facts and travel of the case, emphasizing the underlying February 2020 eviction proceeding, wherein judgment had entered in favor of defendants with respect to Mr. DoCouto’s counterclaims. The hearing justice further noted that Mr. DoCouto had not appealed the District Court’s judgment to the Superior Court. The hearing justice proceeded to review plaintiff’s allegations and to assess the arguments presented to the court.

Beginning with the 2020 Superior Court complaint, the hearing justice determined that not only did Mr. DoCouto fail to make service upon defendants within 120 days after the commencement of the action, but he further pointed out that there was nothing in the record indicating that defendants had ever been served; and he further observed that Mr. DoCouto did not show good cause for that failure to make service. The hearing justice therefore...