Between 1985 and 2002 the defendants acquired title to lot Nos. 66, 66-A, and 66-B, each lot consisting of 10,000 square feet of undeveloped land. These three lots were shown on a map that was recorded in the towns land evidence record in 1912. On the map the three lots each had four numbers inside the solid lines. The plaintiff argued that the numbers inside the lots made the map ambiguous as to what actually constituted a lot. In 2003 the defendants obtained building permits for three single family residences, one per lot. In 2007 the plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to stop the building of the single family residences. The plaintiff alleged that there were twelve individual lots, not three, and that they merged into one 30,000 square foot lot when the defendants came into possession of all of them. The plaintiff further alleged that since the lots merged into one massive lot, they could not easily be separated again and therefore the issued building permits were void.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that they owned three buildable 10,000 square foot residential lots and that the ordinance only merged lots that were 6,000 square feet or less. The defendants disputed the claim that they owned twelve 2,500 square foot lots and referenced the map on record as evidence. In granting the motion for summary judgment the trial court found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and therefore the defendants were entitled to the summary judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the lower court’s decision stating that the trial judge did not find the map ambiguous and therefore interpreted the map, as a matter of law, as having three 10,000 square foot lots. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the defendants did not need to partake in depositions. The trial judge “had broad discretion to regulate how and when discovery occurred” and used this discretion when she staying the notices of deposition. On appeal, the court found that this was not considered an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion.
The Shelter Harbor Conservation Society Inc. v. Rogers, 2011 WL 2433977 (R.I. 6/17/2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/OpinionsOrders/opinions/10-16.pdf
