Butterfly Realty and Dairyland, Inc. v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | C.A. W.C. 2010-406 |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
| Parties | BUTTERFLY REALTY and DAIRYLAND, INC. v. JAMES ROMANELLA & SONS, INC. |
DECISION
The matter was originally tried before this Court without a jury. The Defendants prevailed in the underlying suit and Plaintiffs Butterfly Realty and Dairyland Inc. appealed. On June 17, 2012, the Decision was vacated and remanded by our Supreme Court for more specific factual findings on the prescriptive easement elements of actual, open, notorious continuous, and hostile use.
On remand, both parties waived further evidentiary hearings and briefed the outstanding issues.
The facts as previously found in Butterfly v. Romanella WC 2010-406, (R.I. Sup. Ct. 2010) and reviewed by our Supreme Court in Butterfly v. Romanella, No 2011-120-Appeal, (R.I. 2011) are supplemented as necessary.
In 1957, Plaintiff, Dairyland Inc., took title to Assessor's Plat 77, Lot 331 in Westerly, Rhode Island. Lot 331 is located immediately north of Assessor's Plat 77, Lots 329 and 330. Lot 331 has frontage on Granite Street where it meets East Avenue. In the 1970s, Defendant James Romanella & Sons, Inc. ("Romanella") took possession of Assessor's Plat 7, Lots 329 and 330. Upon taking possession of the lots, Romanella constructed a small shopping center.
A commercial building on Lot 331 extends onto Lot 332, occupying the western half of each lot. The commercial building contains two separate storefronts—a larger one spanning both lots and smaller one at the southwest corner of the building. A loading dock for the commercial building lies in a slightly recessed section of its southwest corner. This loading dock encroaches on the Romanella property.
In 1985, Shawn Martin formed Butterfly Realty with Larry Zuckerman to take title to Lot 332. Romanella conveyed Lot 332 to Butterfly Realty on August 8, 1985.[2] On the same day, he also leased Lot 331 from Dairyland and assigned the lease to Butterfly Realty. Because of the encroachment of the building and the limited vehicular access to that corner, Romanella deeded an express easement to Butterfly Realty to use a small strip of land to access the commercial building's loading dock.
The granted 1985 easement permits the "ingress and egress to and from the loading dock at the southwest corner of the building at Lot 331 by vehicles, and, on foot, but not semi-trailers, for loading and unloading equipment and merchandise for Grantee's place of business and for no other purpose." It provides for passage alongside the southern edge of Butterfly's building along a strip ranging in width from approximately 15 to 20 feet.
To access the loading dock, commercial vehicles would usually take one of two routes through the parking area. A vehicle taking the "brown route"[3] would reach the loading dock by entering directly onto Lot 330 from East Avenue, proceeding west between the two buildings, pulling around to the west side of the laundromat[4], and then backing up to the loading dock. A vehicle taking the "green route" would reach the loading dock by entering onto Lot 331 from Granite Street, crossing over several painted parking spaces before entering Lot 330, merging with the "brown route, " and then backing up to the loading dock.
Butterfly Realty did not use the easement or loading docks. Instead, it allowed a string of tenants to receive deliveries by using the easement. The entire easement was not regularly used for deliveries. Instead, the independent distributors used a variety of routes to access the loading dock. From 1985 to 1989, Shawn Martin and his wife operated a liquor store out of the larger store front of the commercial building. The liquor store received 12 to 15 deliveries per week. Distributor deliveries were made directly to the loading dock usually by way of the green or brown routes.
After the liquor store vacated the commercial building, several other businesses leased it, or portions of it, from Butterfly Realty. From 1991 through 2006, AutoZone[5] leased a portion of the commercial building. Supplies were delivered to AutoZone weekly usually by use of the brown or the green routes. Because of their size, the tractor trailers would enter the lot, pull up to the west side of the laundromat, and then back into the loading dock.[6]
An Auto Audio store also leased a portion of the commercial building from Butterfly Realty. Auto Audio received bulk deliveries from UPS twice a day during its tenancy. These deliveries were received in small trucks that were usually driven directly to the loading dock using the green or brown routes. These trucks did not routinely do the "Y" turn to back up to the dock.
From 1985 through 2006, for one month each year, Christmas trees were sold in a fenced off area by a tenant of Romanella. This area covered six parking spaces to the northwest of the Romanella laundromat building, plus, additional area extending north. The area used increased in size, because as Ms. Martin put it, "each year [the trees] would take a little more space." When the Christmas trees were being sold, AutoZone employees parked their personal cars on the Butterfly lot so the trailers could reach the loading dock. Before 2005, a manager from AutoZone complained to Romanella that the Christmas tree sales impeded access to the loading dock. Romanella responded by informing the AutoZone manager that Romanella owned the lot and tersely suggested that AutoZone should use smaller delivery trucks.
The area used by the Romanella tenant for Christmas tree sales was substantial and blocked Butterfly's use of the alleged easement. Exhibit 14 was marked by Mr. Williams, an employee of Auto Zone. (Tr. at 48, lines 1-3) Using his marks, the tree lot extended out some 40 feet from the laundromat, beyond the brown route. Mr. Charles Sposato, an owner of Romanella, agreed with this sketch (Tr. at 91, line 2) and suggested the space was 35 to 40 feet from the laundromat, but the lot was sometimes even larger. (Tr. at 90, line 16). Mr. Williams acknowledged that the usual route was not open when the Christmas trees were being sold. (Tr. at pp. 42-43, 51, line 22 through p. 52, line 3.) The trucks could not use the path marked in brown. (Tr. at 61-62.)
There was insufficient evidence to establish that the green route was used regularly. Ms. Martin testified that the green route was used on only four occasions (Tr. at 15, line 17). Although it is difficult to see the disputed area from inside the liquor store, she asserted that cars were routinely parked in the spaces under the green route. (Tr. at 17, lines 8-12). Mr. Williams testified that 50 foot trucks could back up to the loading dock even though he drew the Christmas tree lot as blocking the brown route and he acknowledged cars were parked next to the Butterfly building. (Tr. at 43; at 52 lines 2-3). In sum, the Court finds no credible evidence that the green route was used, and finds it was not used during the annual sale of the Christmas trees.[7]
Romanella maintains an office on the northern edge of their property, west of the Laundromat, and to the south of the loading dock. Tenants, customers and employees of Romanella used the disputed areas along with multiple entrances on the two lots on a regular basis. Deliveries were made to the Romanella tenants by driving through the easement area and then turning south at the rear of the plaza. Romanella occasionally moved vehicles for the trucks but has also chided the truck operators for blocking the lot and damaging the building. Romanella asphalted, seal-coated, and striped its lot up to the approximate area of the area of the easement.
Mr. Sposato occupied the office in the building with a window facing the easement. After a delivery truck struck the Romanella building, Mr. Sposato investigated the easement agreement in May 2010. Romanella then installed concrete pylons along the southwest borders of the express easement. The pylons made it nearly impossible for delivery trucks to pull directly up to the loading dock, as had been done previously.
In response, Butterfly and Dairyland Inc. filed for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-13, §34-16-4, and §9-30-1 et seq. Butterfly sought to quiet title and acquire a prescriptive easement along the disputed area. Romanella filed a counterclaim requesting a permanent injunction to prevent Butterfly Realty from trespassing.
After a series of motions regarding preliminary injunctions and stays, this Court ultimately found in favor of Defendant James Romanella & Sons, Inc. This Court did not find a prescriptive easement on grounds that Plaintiffs did not show that the use of the disputed area was consistent or hostile. Butterfly Realty v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc., 45 A.3d 584 (R.I. 2012).
Prescriptive easements, granted by implication, allow non-owners limited use of another's realty. A party claiming a prescriptive easement must establish "actual, open, notorious hostile, and continuous use under a claim of right for at least ten years." Drescher v. Johannessen, 45 A.3d 1218, 1227-28 (R.I. 2012) (quoting Hilley, 972 A.2d at 651-52; Nardone v. Ritacco, 936 A.2d 200 205 (R.I. 2007)); Burke-Tarr Co. v. Ferland Corp. 724 A.2d 1014, 1020 (R.I. 1999). Each of those elements must be proven "by clear and satisfactory evidence" by the party seeking the prescriptive easement. Drescher, 45 A.3d at 1227-28; Hilley, 972 A.2d at 651-52; see also Reitsma v. Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC, 774 A.2d 826, 831 (R.I. 2001) (). The fact-finder determines whether this burden is satisfied. Drescher, 45 A.3d at 1227-28. In its most recent cases, our Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial