Read's Landscape Constr., Inc. v. Town of W. Warwick

252 A.3d 713

READ'S LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION, INC.

v.The TOWN OF WEST WARWICK et al.

No. 2019-313-Appeal.

No. 2019-323-M.P.

No. 2019-442-Appeal.

KC 17-1008

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 10, 2021

Joelle C. Rocha, Esq., Michael A. Kelly, Esq., for Plaintiff.

David M. Campbell, Esq, Timothy A. Williamson, Esq., for Defendant.

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

Justice Goldberg, for the Court.

These consolidated appeals came before the Supreme Court on April 7, 2021, on appeal by the defendant, 4N Properties, LLC (4N or defendant), from a partial Superior Court judgment and order granting injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiff, Read's Landscape Construction, Inc. (RLC or plaintiff). The defendant asserts that the trial justice erred (1) in granting summary judgment due to the existence of a number of disputed material facts and (2) in granting a permanent mandatory injunction due to what defendant argues is RLC's failure to establish irreparable harm and great urgency. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment and order of the Superior Court.

Facts and Travel

On December 16, 2015, RLC entered into a purchase and sale agreement to buy from 4N a one-acre parcel of property located at Industrial Lane in West Warwick, Rhode Island. The agreement was contingent upon many conditions, including "[s]ubdivision approval by the [m]unicipality[.]" In order to create the one-acre parcel, 4N subdivided its 14.49-acre parcel into four lots—labeled Lots A, B, C, and D—pursuant to a minor subdivision plan dated January 20, 2016 (January 20 minor subdivision plan). The parcel at issue was identified as "Lot C."¹ The January 20 minor subdivision plan included a metes and bounds description for Lot C and indicated that Lot C "has a right to utilize a 40’ wide right-of-way for ingress and egress * * *." The January 20 minor subdivision plan stated: "right of way referred to as Nunes Lane[.]" In addition to its reference on the January 20 minor subdivision plan, Nunes Lane was also depicted as a right of way on plans previously recorded with the Town of West Warwick (the town) in 2007 and 2012.

The Town of West Warwick Planning Board unanimously approved the January 20 minor subdivision plan on February 1, 2016, and acknowledged in the meeting minutes that "Nunes Lane is a right of way." The approved plan was signed by the town planner on April 6, 2016, and was recorded in the land evidence records. The record reflects that another minor subdivision plan, dated January 5, 2016, also was prepared (January 5 plan).² The January 5 plan and January 20 minor subdivision plan contained an identical metes and bounds description for Lot C. However, the January 20 minor subdivision plan added language to specifically indicate that Nunes Lane was a "right of way referred to as" Nunes Lane. Although the January 5 plan was never considered or approved by the planning board—and the January 20 minor subdivision plan was considered, approved, and recorded—the January 5 plan was the plan set forth in the conveyance deed from 4N to RLC for Lot C.

Shortly after the April 6, 2016 filing of the January 20 minor subdivision plan, a third plan—an administrative subdivision prepared on behalf of 4N—was approved and recorded on April 27, 2016 (April 2016 administrative subdivision).³ Unlike a minor subdivision, which is "[a] plan for a subdivision of land consisting of five (5) or fewer units or lots," G.L. 1956 § 45-23-32(25), an administrative subdivision involves only the "[r]e-subdivision of existing lots which yields no additional lots for development, and involves no creation or extension of streets. The re-subdivision only involves divisions, mergers, mergers and division, or adjustments of boundaries of existing lots." Section 45-23-32(2). The April 2016 administrative subdivision did not change Lot C's boundary lines or area, but it modified Lot D's boundary line, such that "it narrowed Nunes Lane by 10 feet[,] thus adding a strip of land 10 feet wide to Lot D"—similar to a hockey stick configuration—on the west side of Nunes Lane. Significantly, however, Nunes Lane is again referred to as "a right of way" on the April 2016 administrative subdivision and is again labeled as a "40 [foot] wide ingress [and] egress easement"; it is also listed in the street index on the plan. This administrative subdivision is not referenced in the warranty deed from 4N to RLC for Lot C.

On June 22, 2016, Lot C was conveyed by warranty deed to RLC. The deed set forth the identical metes and bounds description for Lot C contained in the January 20 minor subdivision plan and the January 5 plan. The deed referenced the unrecorded January 5 plan, stating that "[s]aid description being Lot ‘C’ as shown on that plan entitled ‘Minor Subdivision Prepared for 4N Properties LLC * * * January 5, 2016 * * *.’ " The deed also included language that "[s]aid plat is recorded with the Land Evidence Records of the Town of West[ ]Warwick in Plat Book 7 at Page 23." This reference, however, is to the January 20 minor subdivision plan, which is not referenced in the deed. The defendant maintains that the recordation reference was added after the closing without 4N's knowledge or consent. What is clear is that, after the closing, RLC did not have access to Nunes Lane because a row of boulders was situated along the hockey stick portion of Lot D.

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court on September 22, 2017, and an amended complaint on September 26, 2017. RLC alleged that 4N "committed fraud in the inducement and misrepresentation" by altering the Nunes Lane right of way and eliminating RLC's ability to use the right of way.⁴ Specifically, RLC maintained that 4N "created a barrier by boulders so that [RLC] cannot access [its] [p]roperty through Nunes Lane as intended."⁵ In its amended complaint, RLC sought a declaration that it "has a right of way in and to Nunes Lane" and injunctive relief prohibiting 4N from preventing RLC's use of Nunes Lane to access Lot C.

Shortly after filing its amended complaint, RLC moved for partial summary judgment against 4N. The trial justice determined that summary judgment was premature because there was "information that could be gained from discovery which may sharpen the issues * * *." As such, the trial justice directed the parties to engage in the discovery process and continued the summary-judgment motion. The plaintiff renewed its motion for partial summary judgment a year later, on December 4, 2018, arguing that the 2007 and 2012 recorded plans, the January 20 minor subdivision plan that created Lot C, and the warranty deed that conveyed Lot C to RLC each establish a right of way in and to Nunes Lane in favor of RLC. The plaintiff also argued, in the alternative, that there had been an incipient dedication of Nunes Lane by virtue of "the clear language and lines on the recorded plans themselves * * *."

The defendant filed an objection and a cross-motion for summary judgment, in which it argued that the right of way over Nunes Lane was abandoned by the recording of the April 2016 administrative subdivision, such that when Lot C was conveyed to RLC in June 2016, no right of way existed. Also, 4N maintained that the right of way "over Nunes Lane was specifically excluded from the sale" because a gate and boulders, which 4N contends were readily apparent before the closing, obstructed access to Nunes Lane, and that any language referring to a right of way was excluded from the warranty deed. Further, 4N claimed that there was no incipient dedication of Nunes Lane because RLC previously acknowledged that Nunes Lane is not a public road, there was no evidence that the town accepted Nunes Lane as a public road, and, even assuming that an incipient dedication had occurred, material questions of fact remained as to whether 4N revoked "any unintentional incipient dedication claimed by RLC." Finally, 4N claimed that the deed was materially altered after delivery and, therefore, was potentially void.

A hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment was held on April 8, 2019, before a different trial justice. After hearing argument from the parties, the trial justice reserved decision and, on May 13, 2019, granted summary judgment in favor of RLC in a bench decision. In so ruling, the trial justice found that the warranty deed clearly and unambiguously granted "Lot C an easement over Nunes Lane"; therefore, he declined to examine extrinsic evidence, including affidavits asserting that 4N told RLC "that an easement over Nunes Lane would not be included in the sale of Lot C and the evidence of boulders blocking Nunes Lane from Lot C" was apparent.⁶ The trial justice rejected 4N's argument that the April 2016 administrative subdivision plan abandoned the Nunes Lane right of way and, instead, found that "the recording of the Administrative Subdivision * * * does not change the private right of way granted to [RLC] in the Warranty Deed which was executed and recorded after the Administrative Subdivision." The trial justice also concluded that any alteration to the deed—which apparently added a reference to the date, book, and page in which the January 20 minor subdivision plan was filed—was not material because "[t]he recording information is nothing more than a mere reference point for future surveyors or title attorneys[,]" and that "adding the recording reference in no way materially changed what was conveyed by the Warranty Deed."

Thus, the trial justice declared that RLC had a right of way in and to Nunes Lane because the easement was not specifically excluded from the warranty deed, the metes and bounds description for Lot C used Nunes Lane as a boundary line in three distinct places, and the deed referenced the January 5 plan which, although unrecorded, clearly showed Nunes Lane as a right of way. The trial justice granted RLC's motion for partial summary judgment, denied 4N's ...