Capital Properties, Inc. v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-324-Appeal.,99-324-Appeal. |
| Parties | CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC. v. STATE of Rhode Island et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Present WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
Gerald John Petros, Brent Canning, Providence, for Capital Properties.
Jeffrey Gladstone, Providence, for Union Station Associates et al. for plaintiff.
Richard G. Riendeau, Joseph S. Larisa, Jr., Philip W. Noel, Charles J. McGovern, Eugene Coulter, James R. Lee., Providence, for defendant.
This case comes before us on an appeal by the state of Rhode Island (state) and the city of Providence (city) from summary judgments entered in the Superior Court arising from four civil actions that were consolidated for trial before Justice Thomas H. Needham of the Superior Court. These cases involve separate but related disputes among the plaintiff, Capital Properties, Inc. (CPI), the state, and the city. These disputes include the issues of payment by the state and the city of a condemnation award entered in the Superior Court in favor of CPI in which the fair-market value of property condemned by the state for the Providence River Relocation Project was set in the sum of $10,653,328.03. The disputes include a purported assessment by the city of taxes on other property owned by CPI in the Capital Center area based upon the valuation made by the Superior Court in the condemnation procedure. This reassessment of taxes covered a period for the years 1991 to 1997. The disputes also include a proceeding commenced by the Providence Redevelopment Agency to condemn a parcel of real estate in the Capital Center area referred to in this litigation as parcel No. 9. All these disputes were resolved by summary judgments entered in the Superior Court.
The state opposed the entry of summary judgment that required it to pay the entire balance of the condemnation award, subject to reimbursement by the city for its 50 percent share and credit by CPI for a sum already paid by the state and also for reimbursement by CPI for the value of land (parcel No. 9) that the state had conveyed to CPI to pay the state's share of the condemnation award. The city appealed from the summary judgments that enjoined the city from its purported retroactive tax increase and invalidated the purported condemnation of parcel No. 9, and also appealed from the conditional summary judgment requiring the city to reimburse the state for 50 percent of the payment that the state would make to satisfy the condemnation award.
We are of the opinion that for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Needham the appeals by the state, the city, and the Providence Redevelopment Agency1 are without merit. We adopt the opinion of Justice Needham as our own but make the following modifications to the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court.
1. By reason of a waiver entered in open court by counsel for CPI, the state shall not be required to pay its 50 percent share of the award to CPI since CPI acknowledges that it has already received full reimbursement for the state's share by an earlier payment plus the conveyance of parcel No. 9 from the state to CPI. Consequently the state shall, pursuant to the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court, pay to CPI within twenty days from the date of this opinion the 50 percent share of the condemnation award that was held in the Superior Court to be attributable to and ultimately payable by the city.
2. Within twenty days of the date of the payment by the state of the share of the award attributable to the city, the city shall, pursuant to the conditional summary judgment entered in the Superior Court, pay to the state complete reimbursement for the state's payment to CPI of the city's share of the condemnation award.
In all other respects the judgments entered by the Superior Court are affirmed and the appeals by the state and the city are denied and dismissed. The opinion of Justice Needham is appended hereto as exhibit A and made a part hereof. The papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court for issuance of execution on the summary judgments already rendered and for further proceedings relating to issues that are still pending before the Superior Court in respect to the parties to this litigation.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE, SC SUPERIOR COURT
CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, Defendant
WILLIAM D. ANKER, Ph.D., Director, Dept. of Transportation, State of Rhode Island, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN T. NAPOLITANO, Treasurer, and VINCENT A. CIANCI, Mayor, City of Providence; CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants.
CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF PROVIDENCE; THOMAS P. ROSSI, Individually and in his capacity as Tax Assessor for the City of Providence, and ANTHONY ANNARINO, Individually and in his capacity as Tax Collector for the City of Providence; JOHN DOE, Alias, Defendants.
CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
PROVIDENCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; PROVIDENCE CITY COUNCIL, by and through its Members in their official capacities, Evelyn V. Fargnoli, Council President, et al., Defendants
These are civil actions involving the State of Rhode Island, the City of Providence, and Capital Properties, Inc., wherein our Supreme Court, in Capital Properties, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island, No. 98-394-Appeal, Order Entered (December 3, 1998) 726 A.2d 12, has remanded to the Court C.A. No. 88-1654 and has ordered this Court to "consolidate, hear, and decide all claims and defenses, including, but not limited to, title to [P]arcel 9, alleged unpaid taxes owed by CPI to the [C]ity, any agreements between the [C]ity and the [S]tate, and any further unresolved claims between he parties.." See Appendix A. This Court notes that the Supreme Court "under its supervisory and revisory powers has the authority to fashion remedies" Cheetham v. Cheetham. 121 R.I. 337, 342, 397 A.2d 1331, 1334 (1979) (citations omitted), that will "serve the ends of justice" and end the controversy. Vincent v. Musone, 574 A.2d 1234, 1235 (R.I.1990); See also Lanceellotti v. Lancellotti, 543 A.2d 680, 682 (R.I.1998)
. The Supreme Court may remand a case to the Superior Court "with such directions as are necessary and proper" to carry out this purpose. E. & J. Inc. v. redevelopment Agency of Woonsocket, 122 R.I. 288, 296, 405 A.2d 1187, 1192 (1979) (citations omitted). Moreover, this Court is Audette v. Colletti, 539 A.2d 520, 522 (R.I.1998), and the Court may "fashion a remedy to bring [] litigation to a definite conclusion ... without reference to procedural impediments...." School Committee of the Town of North Providence v. North Providence Federation of Teachers, Local No. 920 (AFL — CIO), 476 A.2d 1037, 1040) (citation omitted). With these principles in mind, the above entitle case actions, which represent all unresolved claims and defenses between the parties, are hereby consolidated before this Court.
The parties have filed motions for summary judgment. This Court renders a Decision herein in accordance with Super. Ct.R.Civ.P. Rule 56.
On April 6, 1988, Capital Properties Inc. (CPI) filed C.A. No. 88-1654, seeking a determination of the fair market value of property condemned by the State of Rhode Island (State) in connection with the Providence River Relocation — Memorial Boulevard Extension Project (Providence River Relocation Project) in the City of Providence (City). See Decision by Justice Francis J. Darigan, Jr., No. PC 8801654, March 5, 1997, Darigan, J. (1997 WL 839896). On may 6, 1997, the Superior Court, Darigan, J., entered a Final Judgment in the amount of $10,653,328.03 for condemnation damages in favor of CPI. On July 22, 1988, the Superior Court granted CPI a Writ of Mandamus ordering the State to make payment of the Final Judgment plus accrued interest. See Decision by Justice Dominic F. Cresto, No. PC 88-1654, July 22, 1988, Cresto, J. (1998 WL 474085). The State has appealed this Decision to the Supreme Court. See Capital Properties, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island, No. 98-394-Appeal, supra. The Supreme Court has deferred further consideration of this appeal until this Court consolidates, hears, and decides all unresolved claims and defenses between the parties. Id.
On May 26, 1998, the State filed C.A. No. 98-2525, seeking declaratory relief pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, R.I.G.L. § 9-30-1 et seq., concerning the contractual rights and obligations of the parties with respect to payment of the Final Judgment in C.A. No. 88-1654. The State has moved for summary judgment against CPI, arguing that the State has already paid its contractual share of the Final Judgment. The State also has moved, although reluctantly, for "conditional" summary judgment against the City. The State argues that the City, not the State, is contractually liable to pay CPI the remaining share of the Final Judgment. Additionally, the State argues the alternative, that if this Court determines the State is liable to pay CPI the Final Judgment, then the City is contractually liable to the State for one half the Final Judgment. In response, CPI has moved for summary judgment against the State, arguing that the State, not the City, is the proper judgment debtor and is contractually obligated to pay the condemnation award. The City opposes the motions by the State and CPI, arguing that the contract between the State and City is void and unenforceable for lack of City Council authorization. The City also contests the jurisdiction of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood
...Standard Fed. Sav. Bank v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 248 Neb. 552, 537 N.W.2d 333, 336 (1995); Capital Props., Inc. v. State, 749 A.2d 1069, 1080 (R.I.1999); Torbett v. Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Trust Co., 173 W.Va. 210, 314 S.E.2d 166, 170-71 34. We do not address or purport to rule on whet......
-
Williams v. Stoddard
...or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office.'" Capital Props., Inc. v. State, 749 A.2d 1069, 1081 (R.I. 1999) (quoting Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)). Thus, in contrast to lawsuits against government officials in ......
-
Siebe, Inc. v. Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc.
...of the terms of the contract." Zarrella v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1249, 1259 (R.I.2003). See Capital Properties, Inc. v. State, 749 A.2d 1069, 1081 (R.I.1999); Rivera v. Gagnon, 847 A.2d 280, 284 In interpreting contractual terms, courts look at the intent of the parties. Ca......
-
Rhode Island Economic Dev. V. Parking Co.
...of private property," we unhesitatingly will declare it void. Romeo, 105 R.I. at 665, 254 A.2d at 434; see also Capital Properties, Inc. v. State, 749 A.2d 1069, 1086 (R.I.1999) ("[A] showing that a [state] agency has exceeded its delegated authority by an arbitrary, capricious bad faith ta......