Joanne Miller married Dean Miller. Four children were bore from the marriage. In 2006 a petition for divorce was filed. As part of the Property Settlement Agreement, Dean Miller assented to provide life insurance for the benefit of the four children until the age of majority. The Agreement did not When Dean Miller listed his children as the beneficiary on the policy, he added the following statement on the service form: “Beneficial interests to be paid to and managed by Kristin Saunders as custodial trustee for the benefit of my minor children.” Kristin Saunders was Dean’s sister. This became a point of contention for Joanne Miller and she filed a complaint with the Court seeking that Kristin and her husband Henry be removed as trustee alleging that any funds were to be paid out to her directly and that she should have been the trustee. The Court disagreed and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision. In response to Joanne Miller’s challenge that the language of the Property Settlement Agreement established her as trustee the Rhode Island Supreme Court specifically articulated that: ‘Here, we hold that the contractual language is not ambiguous, and that Mr. Miller did not violate paragraph twelve of the agreement by designating Mrs. Saunders “as custodial trustee for the benefit of [his] minor children” on the service request form.’ See Miller v. Saunders
Categories: Divorce, Family Court, Recent Decisions.
Tags: Beneficiary, Divorce, Property Settlement Agreement, Trustee
The renovations of the Hampton Inn & Suites (owned by Weybosset Hotel, LLC) was to be done by Stonestreet Construction LLC. There were several guarantee clauses in the contract and eventually a dispute arose among the parties involved, including one of the subcontractors. Most of the dispute surrounded monies owed, mostly as a result of change orders and delays. The GC and said subcontractor filed mechanics liens in state Superior Court and an action in Federal Court under supplemental jurisdiction. While the federal action was pending, the mechanics liens matter was adjudicated in the state court. Weybosset Hotel LLC filed several motions in Federal Court, among which was the Court’s continued supplemental jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s findings that it continued to have jurisdiction and upheld the award in favor of Stonestreet Construction LLC. See full opinion at: Allstate Interiors & Exteriors, Inv. v. Stonestreet Construction, LLC v. Weybosset Hotel, LLC.
Categories: Civil, News, Recent Decisions.
Tags: Civil Lawsuits, Hampton Inn & Suites, Mechanic's Lien, Stonestreet Construction
In a recent decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Rhode Island District Court's Decision in DeCiantis v. Wall. DeCiantis was convicted of the murder of Dennis Roche from back in the early 1980's. The informant that the State used, William Ferle, was part of the criminal element of the day. He and his family were placed in protective custody. The State while disclosing some of Ferle's criminal history to DeCiantis, seems to have failed to provide the extensive criminal activity Mr. Ferle was involved in. Additionally, there seems to be no evidence that the state exposed that Ferle was being compensated to the tune of $24,000 including the State's payment of his home mortgage. After more that 2 decades of court proceedings that has spanned over 4 decades, the First Circuit has agreed with the lower courts. Although DeCiantis argued that “[u]nder Rhode Island law, the deliberate nondisclosure of evidence favorable to a defendant furnishes 'grounds for a new trial regardless of the degree of harm to the defendant.'” State v. Chalk, 816 A.2d 413, 419 (R.I. 2002), all the Courts that have reviewed this argument have reached similar conclusion. DeCiantis habeas corpus appeal has been denied. Full opinion can be seen at: DeCiantis v. Wall.
987zzz321
987zzz321
Categories: Civil, Criminal, Recent Decisions.
Tags: Criminal, Criminal Law, DeCiantis, Post Conviction
The Rhode Island Supreme Court issued a ruling last week recognizing that the prosecution’s questioning of defendant for crimes he had not been convicted of served to prejudice the jury and overturned the conviction. The defendant was on trial for possession of drugs with intent to deliver while having available a firearm for use. During the warrant execution, a gun was discovered in the defendant’s girlfriend’s purse. The defendant was not on the premises and was not arrested until some weeks later. He had previously been sentenced to probation for possession of cocaine. Rhode Island does not recognize a sentence of just probation as a conviction. During the trial, the defendant testified in his own defense that the drugs were for his personal use. The prosecution during cross asked the defendant about his previous conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The questioning was misleading in that defendant did not have a conviction and certainly it was not for possession with intent to deliver. Attorney Steven J. De Luca, representing the defendant, objected. And although the judge sustained the objection in form, the prosecutor put the information before the defendant and jury once more and attempted to confuse the defendant’s answers. An appeal was filed by Lara E. Montecalvo from the Public Defender’s Office, arguing among several issues this preserved issue. The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed with the preserved issue that defendant’s right to a fair trial was compromised and overturned his conviction. See the entire opinion at: State v. Price
Categories: Criminal, Recent Decisions.
Tags: Criminal, Criminal Law, Impeachment, RI Supreme Court
Inmate at Adult Correctional Institute (“ACI”) had filed lengthy complaint against the prison administration. He would later file a second complaint, which was 58 pages long. Attorneys for the ACI complained to the Superior Court that the claims were barred by res judicata and that plaintiff should not be permitted to continue to use the limited judicial resources, in essence complaining that Plaintiff was abusing the court system. The Superior Court agreed with the attorneys and issued an order barring the plaintiff from filing any action in the Superior Court. The Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned the Superior Court ruling that:
‘In the case at bar, the order limiting plaintiff’s access to the court is overly broad; it is tantamount to a lifetime ban on the Superior Court’s acceptance of any pro se filing by plaintiff—excepting those related to the instant appeals—and fails to exclude criminal cases or those matters in which plaintiff may appear as a defendant. Critically, the order fails to recite any findings of fact, nor does it appear that plaintiff was afforded notice or an adequate opportunity to be heard before it was entered. Furthermore, we are not convinced that the record in this case reflects a degree of “abuse [that] is so continuous and widespread as to suggest no reasonable alternative.”‘ See complete opinion at: Laurence v. R.I. Department of Corrections, et al.
Categories: Civil, Criminal, News, Recent Decisions.
Tags: Ability To Pay, Broad Order, Civil Lawsuits, Civil Rights, Forma Pauperis
The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to rule on the timeliness of snow or ice removal. The Court addressing the injured parties claim found differences in material facts and remanded the case to the Superior Court. At issue is when should snow or ice be cleared as to not be liable for any injuries as a result of such ice or snow. The Court recognized that it had adopted the Connecticut rule and held
“that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the nature of the storm on the day in question. Because the nature of the storm dictates whether or not the Connecticut Rule applies, this disputed fact was material. The rationale of the Connecticut Rule is to allow a reasonable time to clear a natural accumulation of snow and ice after a winter storm; thus, the rule is intended to apply to ongoing winter storms resulting in an accumulation of snow, ice, or frozen rain. Because the parties disputed whether the storm on the day of Sullo’s fall was such a storm, there existed a genuine issue of material fact that made the extreme remedy of summary judgment inappropriate in this case.” See the entire opinion at: Sullo v. Greenberg
Categories: Civil, Recent Decisions.
Tags: Connecticut Rule, Injury, Slip & Fall, Snow & Ice
The Courts continue to move the line in comfort with new technology. King, arrested in 2009 on a violent offense was required to give a DNA swab. Three weeks after giving the sample, and after it had been ran through the national database, the sample returned a match on an unsolved rape from 2004. King was swabbed a second time which again produced a match. He was charged with the crime of rape, tried and given a sentence of Life with no possibility of parole. The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, finding that the individual had a greater right in expectation of privacy than the state. The Supreme Court, in an opinion that has left many debating because the judges did not line up in the usual conservative/liberal fashion, has ruled that it is admissible and reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Court’s decision signals the continued awareness of the use of technology in criminal prosecutions and its willingness to undertake these types of cases and craft answers. The Court reasoned in this case:
“In light of the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause respondent’s expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks. By contrast, that same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody. Upon these considerations the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” See full opinion: Maryland v. King
Categories: News, Recent Decisions.
Tags: Criminal, Criminal Law, DNA, Fourth Amendment, Maryland v King, Swab, Technology
Sullivan Whitehead & DeLuca LLP wishes to express its condolences to the Oklahoma tornado victims and families. May you have a speedy recovery.
Categories: News.
Tags: News, Oklahoma, Tornado
The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in favor of commercial property owner. Plaintiff/Appellant had sued commercial property owner after an injury on the property. The Supreme Court reviewed the Superior Court’s ruling granting Summary Judgment. In its opinion the Court sided with the property owner. The property had been leased and as part of the lease agreement, the lessee was responsible for the maintenance and repairs of the property. The property owner’s argument that none of the three exceptions, (1) that its lease with Healthtrax did not require it to repair and maintain the premises; (2) that plaintiff‟s injury was not caused by a latent defect, and (3) that HCP did not assume a duty to repair the premises, applied in this case was upheld. See full opinion: Berard v. HCP, Inc.
Categories: Civil.
Tags: Civil Lawsuits, Commercial Property Owner, RI Supreme Court
The Rhode Island Supreme Court has handed down a significant opinion to the challenges facing probation individuals and getting their records/BCI cleared up via sealing of records. The Court held that there is a distinct recognition that nolo pleas followed by probation only are not convictions for purposes of the sealing of records statute. Therefore any subsequent dismissed action is subject to the sealing provisions provided in by RI Gen. Laws. See Opinion at: State v. Poulin
Categories: Criminal, News, Recent Decisions.
Tags: BCI, Criminal Law, Expungement, Sealing of Records