Charles Martin v. Glen Wilson ( 2021 )

March 19, 2021
Supreme Court
No. 2018-339-Appeal.
(WC 16-27)
Charles Martin et al. :
v. :
Glen Wilson et al. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical
or other formal errors in order that corrections may be
made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court
No. 2018-339-Appeal.
(WC 16-27)
Charles Martin et al. :
v. :
Glen Wilson et al. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, and Robinson, JJ.
OPINION
Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court. An unneighborly dispute between
owners of adjacent parcels of land over the use of a “right of way easement” in a
subdivision in Richmond is the genesis of this appeal. More specifically, this Court
is asked to address whether an implied easement exists over a portion of a common
driveway system.
The defendants, Glenn Wilson and Valerie Wilson (collectively defendants or
the Wilsons), appeal from a Superior Court judgment entered in favor of the
plaintiffs, Charles Martin and Nicole Martin (collectively plaintiffs or the Martins).1
The Martins succeeded on their claim for injunctive relief in Superior Court,
allowing them access to a common driveway for the purpose of entering and exiting
their property and enjoining the Wilsons from interfering with such use. Conversely,
1
We note that there are inconsistencies in the record regarding the spelling of Mr.
Wilson’s first name. We utilize the proper spelling, “Glenn.”
-1-
the Wilsons’ counterclaims for trespass and injunctive relief were dismissed by the
trial justice. On appeal, the Wilsons contend that the trial justice erred by (1)
allowing parol evidence to be admitted; (2) finding an implied easement over the
common driveway; and (3) finding that the Wilsons’ counterclaims were moot. For
the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
I
Facts and Travel
On February 13, 1995, William and Anna Rzepecki conveyed a large tract of
land on Kingston Road (Route 138) in Richmond, Rhode Island, to Midwestern
Homes, Inc. (Midwestern Homes). Previously, on January 24, 1995, a plan had been
recorded in the land evidence records establishing an eight-lot subdivision, North
County Estates (the subdivision). A private right-of-way, or common driveway
system, was created on the subdivision for purposes of constructing homes,
installing septic systems, and providing access to the lots without impacting existing
wetlands. The plan for the subdivision was approved by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the Rhode Island Department
of Transportation (DOT), and other agencies as required.
On October 29, 1996, the Wilsons purchased Lot 4 of the subdivision from
Midwestern Homes. The warranty deed included a reference to map 168, slide 118B
-2-
in the land evidence records.2 This map did not include any depiction or reference
to the common driveway system. The Wilsons have owned this property from the
time of purchase to the present and lived there continuously until approximately
mid-2016. At the time of trial, their property was occupied by tenants.
On May 31, 2013, the Martins took title to Lot 3 of the subdivision. This lot
had three prior owners, only one of whom had a deed that included any reference to
the common driveway system. The Martins’ deed included a reference to map 168,
slide 118B. The Martins reside on this property with their son, who has severe
disabilities.
Both the Martins and the Wilsons access their homes through the common
driveway system that runs south off Route 138. The common driveway climbs a
steep hill atop of which are situated their respective homes. The common driveway
forks to the Martins’ private driveway on the right (the first entrance); it then
continues a short distance to the Wilsons’ house on the left. At trial, Mrs. Martin
testified that, at the time they purchased their property, there was a second means of
2
We note that the “Recorded Plan for North County Estates” was recorded in the
Richmond Land Evidence Records on January 24, 1995, at 3 p.m. and is referenced
as map 168, slide 118B. That document depicts the eight-lot subdivision without
any easement, right-of-way, or common driveway system. Simultaneously,
however, a “Right of Way Easement Plan for North County Estates” was recorded
as map 168, slide 119A, showing the easement to which we refer as the common
driveway system. Significantly, the original deeds conveyed by Midwestern Homes
to both Lots 3 and 4 contain a reference only to map 168, slide 118B.
-3-
egress to the common driveway system. One could enter their private driveway at
the first entrance, continue in a southerly direction past their house, then curve to the
east to connect back to the common driveway system (the southerly exit). The
common driveway system itself continues in a southerly direction, straddling the
properties of both parties, past the Wilsons’ house on the east to the northerly
boundary of Lot 7 of North County Estates.3 It is the portion of the common
driveway system that lies south of the first entrance to the Martins’ driveway that is
the subject of the parties’ dispute.
According to Mrs. Martin, large vehicles—such as the school buses that
dropped off or picked up their son, oil trucks, and trash trucks—would typically
either back into their driveway and leave nose-first down the hill or pull into their
driveway nose-first, then back out into the common driveway system so that they
could descend the hill in a forward direction.
On May 25, 2015, the Wilsons had a survey completed for their property by
Clift Land Surveying, LLC. On June 24, 2015, the Wilsons’ attorney sent the
Martins a letter stating that the Martins were trespassing on the Wilsons’ property
and demanding that they cease and desist, including for purposes of turning vehicles
around. The Wilsons explained later that they took particular issue with the activities
3
As Lot 7 is owned by The Nature Conservancy and has been dedicated for
conservation purposes, the common driveway system has been developed for
vehicular access only as far as the Wilsons’ house.
-4-
of the school buses because the headlights would shine into the Wilsons’ front
bedroom—where Mr. Wilson slept for a short period of time—when the school
buses were departing in the morning. In 2015, the Wilsons began parking their cars
in such a manner that the school buses could not maneuver using any portion of the
common driveway south of the Martins’ first driveway entrance. Later, the Wilsons
erected a stockade fence—blocking the Martins from using the southerly exit—and
put up a chain across the common driveway system, south of the first entrance.
Larger vehicles—primarily school buses—then had to back down the steep hill into
another branch of the common driveway or directly onto Route 138.
On January 19, 2016, the Martins filed the current action against the Wilsons.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction ordering defendants to remove the
chain across the common driveway and to cease any actions that would hinder
plaintiffs’ use of the common driveway and a permanent mandatory injunction
requiring defendants to remove the stockade fence placed along the boundary line.
The defendants answered and filed a counterclaim, requesting that they be awarded
damages for plaintiffs’ trespass onto their property and that the Superior Court enjoin
plaintiffs from traveling past the first entrance on the common driveway.
On February 4, 2016, the Superior Court entered a temporary restraining order
requiring defendants to remove the chain from the common driveway and to refrain
from parking their vehicles within forty feet of the entrance to plaintiffs’ property.
-5-
On March 10, 2016, the temporary restraining order was modified to allow
defendants to place the chain across the common driveway. A two-day bench trial
was held, commencing on January 9, 2018.
A
The Trial
At trial, plaintiffs called Christopher Duhamel, Mrs. Martin, and Jennifer
McHugh to testify. Mr. Duhamel was a principal at DiPrete Engineering Associates,
a civil engineering and land surveying firm; and, at the time of trial, he had been a
professional engineer and professional land surveyor for over twenty-five years. Mr.
Duhamel was the engineer who oversaw the permitting for the subdivision. He was
responsible for acquiring zoning permitting, planning board permitting, and
environmental permitting.
In regard to environmental permitting, Mr. Duhamel testified that he had to
gain approval from the DEM Division of Freshwater Wetlands, because there were
“freshwater wetlands that are regulated on the property that are required to be
protected.” As a result of the zoning and environmental restrictions, the engineering
firm, as a means of providing ingress and egress to each of the lots from the public
road, “created a private right-of-way to access the lots. The private right-of-way
would be to avoid any wetlands or impact to any wetlands.” Mr. Duhamel testified
that the location of the houses in the subdivision was determined “from the testing
-6-
that’s done onsite, the approved soil areas, approved by RIDEM, ISDS [individual
sewage disposal system] Division, and then designing a septic system within that
area and then designing a house in that proximity.” 4 The common driveway also
had to be “located outside of protected wetlands and protected buffers.”5
Mr. Duhamel further discussed the septic tank installation, explaining that the
septic system was determined to conform with the appropriate plan on July 10, 1996.
Mr. Duhamel testified that this indicates that the driveway had to be in existence at
the time because, otherwise, “none of this construction could have occurred[.]” He
also testified that “[his] office inspected all these stages of the site construction, and
[they] utilized that access to get to the lots.”
Mrs. Martin testified regarding not only her experience with defendants and
the property at issue but also about her experience as the Manager of the Statewide
Transportation Program for the Rhode Island Department of Education, through her
employer TransPar. Mrs. Martin described her property as “at the top of a very steep
hill.” She stated that
“[w]hen you come off of [Route] 138, you have to go up
an easement that’s very, very steep. At the top of the hill
my house is situated on a property, the front yard slopes
4
The DEM ISDS Division is now known by the acronym OWTS (onsite water
treatment system).
5
According to Mr. Duhamel, buffers are “defined by DEM as within 50 feet of a
wooded wetland. A wetland that’s less than three acres in size would not have a
* * * buffer. A stream that’s less than 10-feet wide would have a 100-foot riverbank
wetland, a 100-foot buffer.”
-7-
down. There’s another easement leading to another
neighbor on the other side of [my] home, and then there’s
woodlands that are wetlands that abut Route 138, and then
I have property at the rear of our house that is fairly flat at
that point and more woodlands in the back.”
Mrs. Martin also described parts of her property as having “rocks, trees, and * * *
very large boulders.” She further stated that, at the time she purchased the property,
the Martins had two entrances to their property from the common driveway. The
first entrance is paved and branches from the common driveway at a point slightly
north of their house. The second entrance, the southerly entrance, was a dirt area
that was past the Martins’ home and connected the Martins’ driveway back to the
common driveway at a further southerly point.
Mrs. Martin testified that her son was picked up and dropped off by his school
buses in the morning and afternoon five days a week throughout the entire year,
other than the month of August. Mrs. Martin’s son “received door-to-door bus
service per the [Americans with Disabilities Act] for special needs individuals since
he started school at age three.” The morning bus typically would pick up the
Martins’ son between 6:30 a.m. and 7 a.m.6 Mrs. Martin observed the school buses
using their headlights and flashing their yellow and red lights when picking up her
son. She also testified that, due to her profession, she knew that federal and state
6
Mrs. Wilson, in her testimony, pegged the time as “between 6:05 [a.m.] and 6:15
[a.m.].”
-8-
guidelines regulate the use of the lights during pickup and drop-off of students. The
bus would also make several noises; “[t]he first would be the driver announcing his
arrival over the PA system, and the second would be the backup alarm that turns on
the second the bus is put in reverse.” Mrs. Martin testified that, during their first few
years living in their home,
“the bus would typically come up and either back into
[plaintiffs’] driveway, load [their] child, and then leave
driving nose-first down the hill * * * [or] would pull into
[their] driveway nose-first and then back out onto the
common driveway * * * it backs up and then would go
down nose-first.”
Mrs. Martin testified that defendants began impeding plaintiffs’ use of the
common driveway by
“parking cars in the common driveway right after the
entrance to [the Martins’] driveway so that a school bus
that would pull into [their] driveway nose-first could not
back up * * * or if they wanted to pull forward and then
back into [the] common driveway, they also could not do
that because the cars were there.”
Mrs. Martin then stated that defendants placed a chain across the common driveway
“right after the entrance” to plaintiffs’ driveway. Mrs. Martin also stated that the
southerly entrance remained the same until 2015, when the Wilsons erected the fence
blocking the southerly entrance from access to the common driveway. Mrs. Martin
also testified that, after the fence was erected, stones were placed along the common
driveway directly across from the entrance to plaintiffs’ driveway.
-9-
Mrs. Martin observed that, once the Wilsons started parking cars and placed
a chain across the common driveway, the school buses had to change the way they
picked up and dropped off her son. She stated that the bus “at times would have to
stay out on the common driveway itself because it could not back up anywhere to
turn around, and then it would have to back all the way back down the common drive
to 138 or one of those other branches of the easement.” Mrs. Martin testified that
this was particularly concerning because
“there’s no lighting, so they only have their reverse lights
when they’re backing down the hill. It’s a very steep
grade, and you cannot see where you’re going because
you’re pointed down. * * * [T]he drivers usually use their
aide as a second set of eyes, and even with the aide looking
out the rear of the bus, they would have a hard time
knowing when they needed to start turning onto the branch
of the easement that leads to Lot 2. And a lot of times they
would have to come back up and take multiple shots at it
because they could not see. Those taillights were not
enough light. Snow and ice, sliding, slipping. They on
one day actually slid to the side of the road, and where the
snow is banked because of the plow, they got stuck there
for a little while before they could get themselves out.”
Mrs. Martin further testified that the oil and trash trucks had operated similarly to
the bus and also had to change their operation once the fence and chain were erected.
Jennifer McHugh, a bus attendant for school bus company First Student,
testified that she was a bus monitor for about two years while the Martins’ son rode
the bus. She also testified that, when she was first on the bus picking up the Martins’
son, the bus “would go up the driveway, up to [his] driveway entrance. [It] would
- 10 -
have to pull forward and back into his driveway to safely load him.” Ms. McHugh
also stated that the Martins’ driveway presents a challenge in the morning when it is
dark, particularly in bad weather and when trying to back up.
The defendants then called Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Wilson, Attorney Justin Shay,
and Mrs. Martin to testify. Mrs. Wilson testified that she and her husband lived
continuously in their home in the subdivision from October 1996—when they
purchased the property from Midwestern Homes—until approximately a year and a
half before trial. Mrs. Wilson also testified that, when they moved into their home,
all of the homes in the subdivision were built and some were already occupied. She
further stated that none of the prior owners of Lot 3 ever used the portion of the
common driveway south of the first entrance.
Mrs. Wilson testified that at some point she and her husband erected the
stockade fence. She also testified that they put up a small stone wall across from
plaintiffs’ driveway because Mr. Martin was backing his truck onto their property
and digging up the dirt. Further, she stated that none of her prior neighbors had
attempted to use the southerly entrance as a second driveway. Mrs. Wilson also
testified that she and her husband placed a chain across the driveway to prevent the
school buses from accessing the common driveway south of the Martins’ first
entrance. However, prior to plaintiffs moving into their property, defendants never
- 11 -
had occasion to prevent anyone from accessing this disputed part of the common
driveway.
Mr. Wilson testified that he is a retired truck driver and purchased his home
with his wife in 1996. He also testified that, between 1996 and 2013, he had
observed oil trucks, UPS trucks, and garbage trucks enter the property now owned
by plaintiffs. Mr. Wilson stated that on those occasions the trucks would “turn
around then back up the hill.” However, he also agreed that a school bus would have
difficulty backing down the long driveway unless it had the proper lights.
Mr. Wilson reiterated that he and his wife had placed the rocks across from
the Martins’ driveway entrance. They also put the chain up across the common
driveway around the same time. He stated that they placed the rocks there because
“the Martins were backing out of their driveway, lipping over [the Wilsons’] tar and
tearing it up, along with the school buses, which has dislodged the rocks, hitting it
with their bumpers.”
Attorney Justin Shay testified as an expert title attorney with thirty-five years
of experience. He stated that the legal description in defendants’ deed did not refer
to any easements, rights-of-way, or common driveways. Attorney Shay also noted
that the deed referred to plat map 168, slide 118B. He testified that the referenced
map does not depict any rights-of-way or easements. Attorney Shay further stated
that the same map is referenced in the deed for Lot 3 granted by Midwestern Homes.
- 12 -
B
The Trial Justice’s Decision
On October 3, 2018, the trial justice issued her written decision. As a
threshold issue, the trial justice determined that Mr. Duhamel’s testimony was
admissible because “it is unclear and ambiguous as to whether Midwestern Homes
intended to convey the easements and Rights-of-Way—depicted in [s]lide 119A[.]”
Although the trial justice rejected plaintiffs’ argument that they had an
easement by incipient dedication, she found that an implied easement existed over
the common driveway. The trial justice found that Mr. Duhamel’s testimony
evidenced that an easement was required for the property’s use and enjoyment,
noting that the “construction and development of the Subdivision could not have
occurred without the Right-of-Way driveway system in place allowing access to
each Subdivision Lot.”
The trial justice then concluded that the Martins should prevail on their claim
for injunctive relief. The trial justice also rejected defendants’ counterclaims,
determining that many of those claims were moot once an implied easement was
found. Accordingly, the trial justice allowed plaintiffs access to the disputed area of
the common driveway and permanently prohibited defendants from obstructing such
use.
- 13 -
Final judgment entered on October 24, 2018. The defendants filed a timely
notice of appeal on November 8, 2018.
II
Standard of Review
It is well established that “this Court will not disturb the findings of a trial
justice sitting without a jury unless such findings are clearly erroneous or unless the
trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence.” Quillen v. Macera, 160
A.3d 1006, 1010 (R.I. 2017) (brackets and deletion omitted) (quoting Gregoire v.
Baird Properties, LLC, 138 A.3d 182, 191 (R.I. 2016)). This Court will “accord
great weight to a trial justice’s determinations of credibility, which, inherently, are
the functions of the trial court and not the functions of the appellate court.” Id.(quoting Gregoire, 138 A.3d at 191). “When the record indicates that competent
evidence supports the trial justice’s findings, we shall not substitute our view of the
evidence for his or hers even though a contrary conclusion could have been reached.”
Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Gregoire, 138 A.3d at 191). However, we “review
questions of law de novo.” Id. (quoting Gregoire, 138 A.3d at 192).
“[W]hen reviewing the grant or denial of a permanent injunction, we will
reverse the lower court on appeal only when it can be shown that the trial justice
misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked material evidence or made factual
findings that were clearly wrong.” JHRW, LLC v. Seaport Studios, Inc., 212 A.3d
- 14 -
168, 175 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Nye v. Brousseau, 992 A.2d 1002, 1010 (R.I. 2010)).
“The issuance and measure of injunctive relief rest in the sound discretion of the trial
justice.” Cullen v. Tarini, 15 A.3d 968, 981 (R.I. 2011). “On review, the decision
of the trial court made in the exercise of a discretionary power should not be
disturbed unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been improperly exercised
or that there has been an abuse thereof.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Keystone
Elevator Co. v. Johnson & Wales University, 850 A.2d 912, 921 (R.I. 2004)).
III
Discussion
Before this Court, defendants claim that the trial justice made several errors
in issuing her decision. First, defendants claim that the trial justice erred in allowing
parol evidence to be admitted as it pertains to the warranty deeds. Second,
defendants argue that the trial justice committed an error in finding that an implied
easement existed in this case. Finally, defendants contend that, because the implied
easement did not exist here, their counterclaims were not moot.
The plaintiffs reply that courts routinely consider other kinds of extrinsic
evidence to determine whether an implied easement exists. Further, they assert that
this evidence does not affect the terms of the deed but rather explains the surrounding
circumstances; thus, by its nature, the evidence cannot be parol evidence. The
plaintiffs also argue that the initial owner of this property, Midwestern Homes, used
- 15 -
this easement before severance and that the use of the easement is reasonably
necessary for plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property. Accordingly, they argue that
the trial justice properly determined that an implied easement exists. Finally,
plaintiffs contend that, because the trial justice properly found in their favor and
granted an injunction, the trial justice also properly found that defendants’ claims
were moot.
A
Parol Evidence
The defendants first argue that the trial justice committed an error by
considering Mr. Duhamel’s testimony in the course of determining Midwestern
Homes’s intent regarding the existence of easements in the subdivision. The
defendants contend that this testimony was parol evidence that alters the terms of
the relevant deeds, which do not reference either the easements or a map depicting
the easements. The defendants argue that any maps not referenced in the deed also
should be considered to be parol evidence and should not have been considered by
the trial justice to determine whether an easement exists. The defendants further
contend that the interpretation of the language in the Wilsons’ deed and the Martins’
deed is central to the determination of whether plaintiffs had an easement over the
common driveway.
- 16 -
“[T]he parol evidence rule bars the admission of any previous or
contemporaneous oral [or written] statements that attempt to modify an integrated
written agreement.” Fleet National Bank v. 175 Post Road, LLC, 851 A.2d 267, 276
(R.I. 2004). That rule is grounded in the notion “that a complete written agreement
merges and integrates all the pertinent negotiations made prior to or at the time of
execution of the contract.” Management Capital, L.L.C. v. F.A.F., Inc., 209 A.3d
1162, 1174 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Carlsten v. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc., 853 A.2d
1191, 1195 (R.I. 2004)). “Once integrated, other expressions, oral or written, that
occurred prior to or concurrent with the integrated agreement are not viable terms of
the agreement.” Id. (quoting Carlsten, 853 A.2d at 1195).
We agree with defendants that the language in all the relevant deeds is clear
and unambiguous. By referencing only map 168, slide 118B, those deeds did not
create an express easement to utilize the common driveway system. The fact that
slide 119A, depicting that right-of-way, was recorded in the land evidence records
at the same time as slide 118B is of no significance. The question before us,
however, is whether an implied easement was created. “The proper inquiry for the
existence of an easement by implication * * * focuses on the facts and circumstances
at the time of severance.” Vaillancourt v. Motta, 986 A.2d 985, 988 (R.I. 2009).
Such an inquiry requires the consideration of extrinsic evidence. Thus, we are of the
opinion that the trial justice appropriately considered Mr. Duhamel’s testimony and
- 17 -
trial exhibits not referenced in the deeds to determine whether or not an implied
easement existed.
B
Easement by Implication
The defendants next argue that a permanent injunction should not have been
granted because the trial justice erred in finding that plaintiffs had an implied
easement over the disputed portion of the common driveway. The defendants assert
that the evidence before the trial justice did not establish that use of this area was
necessary for any owner of the property—past or present—now owned by plaintiffs.
The defendants further contend that the Martins’ desire to have a school bus pick up
their son in a certain manner does not outweigh defendants’ property rights.
When the severance of land occurs, “a grant will be implied of all those
continuous and apparent easements which have in fact been used by the owner
during the unity, though they have no legal existence as easements.” Caluori v.
Dexter Credit Union, 79 A.3d 823, 830 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Wellington
Condominium Association v. Wellington Cove Condominium Association, 68 A.3d
594, 603 (R.I. 2013)). “It is well established that ‘an implied easement is predicated
upon the theory that when a person conveys property, he or she includes or intends
to include in the conveyance whatever is necessary for the use and the enjoyment of
the land retained.’” Vaillancourt, 986 A.2d at 987 (brackets omitted) (quoting Hilley
- 18 -
v. Lawrence, 972 A.2d 643, 650 (R.I. 2009)). “The test of necessity is whether the
easement is reasonably necessary for the convenient and comfortable enjoyment of
the property as it existed when the severance was made.” Id. at 987-88 (brackets
omitted) (quoting Wiesel v. Smira, 49 R.I. 246, 250, 142 A. 148, 150 (1928)). The
existence of an implied easement must be established by clear and convincing
evidence. Wellington Condominium Association, 68 A.3d at 603.
We first turn to the continuous and apparent use of the disputed section of the
common driveway by Midwestern Homes before severance of the property. The
trial justice relied heavily on Mr. Duhamel’s testimony that the common driveway
system was necessary for the construction and development of the subdivision. Mr.
Duhamel testified that “none of this construction could have occurred[,]” as to the
septic systems, foundation of houses, and other construction, if the easement was not
being utilized. He also testified that “[his] office inspected all these stages of the
site construction, and [they] utilized that access to get to the lots.” The trial justice
found this testimony to be “highly credible and most insightful.” The trial justice
also considered plat map 168, slides 118B and 119A, to ascertain Midwestern
Homes’s intent upon divesting the lots in the subdivision. She noted that both DEM
and DOT approved plans that depicted the common driveway system right-of-way,
further indicative of Midwestern Homes’s intent.
- 19 -
We defer to the trial justice’s factual findings and determinations regarding
witness credibility. See Quillen, 160 A.3d at 1010. Here, the trial justice considered
the significant amount of evidence—including testimony, aerial photographs of the
land, and various land maps—and did not overlook or misconceive such evidence.
See id. The only material evidence regarding Midwestern Homes’s use of the
common driveway systems was that to which Mr. Duhamel testified. Based on the
trial justice’s careful consideration of Mr. Duhamel’s testimony and the maps
recorded by Midwestern Homes, we find no error in the trial justice’s determination
that Midwestern Homes exercised continuous and apparent use of the common
driveway system at the time of severance.
Finally, we must consider whether the easement was “reasonably necessary”
for the enjoyment of plaintiffs’ property at the time the severance was made. See
Vaillancourt, 986 A.2d at 987-88. The trial justice again considered Mr. Duhamel’s
“informative” testimony, noting that he testified that the “protected wetlands and
buffer zones” created a need to establish the common driveway system as a way of
ingress and egress to the various lots in the subdivision. Significantly, Mr. Duhamel
testified that at the time of severance the only access to Lot 3 (the Martins’ Lot) was
from the common driveway. Thus, he stated, “none of [the] construction could have
occurred without that access being in existence.” We think it no less reasonable that
large commercial vehicles, such as school buses and delivery trucks, be able to use
- 20 -
the disputed area for turning around in order to descend the hill safely today than it
was for construction vehicles to use the same area before the lots were severed in
1996.
After carefully reviewing the record, we are well satisfied that the trial justice
appropriately considered and weighed the evidence before her in finding that
plaintiffs established an implied easement over the disputed section of the common
driveway. We discern no error in this finding and conclude that the trial justice
neither overlooked nor misconceived material evidence in making that
determination.
The defendants have not raised any other arguments as to the trial justice’s
granting of a permanent injunction, and therefore we deem it unnecessary to discuss
the trial justice’s determination that the other elements of a permanent injunction
were established at trial. In holding that the trial justice appropriately found that an
implied easement existed, we defer to her sound discretion in the issuance and
measure of injunctive relief.7 Cullen, 15 A.3d at 981.
7
Because we uphold the trial justice’s determination that an implied easement
existed, we need not, and do not, address plaintiffs’ alternative argument concerning
incipient dedication.
- 21 -
C
The Wilsons’ Claims
Finally, the defendants argue that the trial justice erred in finding that their
claims for declaratory judgment, trespass, and equitable relief were moot, because,
according to the defendants, an implied easement did not exist. “This Court has
consistently held that a case is moot if the original complaint raised a justiciable
controversy, but events occurring after the filing have deprived the litigant of a
continuing stake in the controversy.” Hallsmith-Sysco Food Services, LLC v.
Marques, 970 A.2d 1211, 1213 (R.I. 2009) (quoting State v. Medical Malpractice
Joint Underwriting Association, 941 A.2d 219, 220 (R.I. 2008)). Because we uphold
the trial justice’s determination that an implied easement exists, these claims are
moot.
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The record shall be returned to the Superior Court.
Justice Flaherty participated in the decision but retired prior to its publication.
Justice Lynch Prata and Justice Long did not participate.
- 22 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Title of Case Charles Martin et al. v. Glen Wilson et al.
SU-2018-339-Appeal.
Case Number
(WC 16-27)
Date Opinion Filed March 19, 2021
Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, and Robinson, JJ.
Written By Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell
Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter
For Plaintiffs:
Kelly M. Fracassa, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendants:
Timothy J. Robenhymer, Esq.
SU-CMS-02A (revised June 2020)