City of Warwick v. Aptt

• Decision Date: 21 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 82-463-A,82-463-A
• Citation: 497 A.2d 721
• Parties: CITY OF WARWICK v. William R. APTT et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 721

497 A.2d 721

CITY OF WARWICK v. William R. APTT et al.

No. 82-463-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Aug. 21, 1985.

David D. Prior, Warwick, for plaintiff.

Sydney I. Resnick, Cranston, for defendants.

OPINION

WEISBERGER, Justice.

This case comes before us on appeal brought by the plaintiff from an order entered in the Superior Court granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. We vacate the order of the Superior Court and remand the case for a hearing on the merits. The facts are as follows.

On June 24, 1982, a complaint was filed on behalf of the city of Warwick by the city solicitor charging William R. and Diane L. Aptt, defendants, with violations of the city of Warwick zoning ordinance. Warwick Code §§ 5.14.2, 5.1 (1982). The plaintiff's complaint stated that defendants had repeatedly used their residential property for (1) "the parking, or storing of commercial vehicles having a capacity of more than two tons in violation of Section 5.14.2" and (2) "business purposes other than as permitted in Section 5.1 * * *." ¹ As a remedy plaintiff sought a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring defendants to cease and desist from using their residential property for business purposes and for the storing of commercial vehicles having a capacity of more than two tons.

Following the filing of their answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 1982, on the grounds that two criminal actions brought by plaintiff against defendants were already pending on appeal in the Superior Court. The defendants asserted that because the criminal appeals arose out of the same transactions as those underlying the instant civil complaint, the pending criminal actions precluded plaintiff's seeking injunctive relief. On September 13, 1982, a justice of the Superior Court heard arguments regarding defendants' motion to dismiss and subsequently granted defendants' motion. Although no transcribed record of these proceedings has been furnished, the parties agree that the trial justice based his dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that § 5.14.2 of the city of Warwick ordinance is so vague and indefinite as to violate due process.

The plaintiff appealed the order of the Superior Court to this court on October 4, 1982. In support of its appeal, plaintiff raises two questions.

I DID THE TRIAL JUSTICE ERR IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON THE VAGUENESS OF § 5.14.2 OF THE CITY OF WARWICK ORDINANCE?

The defendants' motion to dismiss was based on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and asserted that plaintiff's complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Generally, the filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires a court to look solely to the sufficiency of the complaint filed in the case. Ryan v. State, Department of Transportation, --- R.I. ---, ---, 420 A.2d 841, 842 (1980); Dutson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 119 R.I. 801, 803-04, 383 A.2d 597, 599 (1978); Palazzo v. The Big G Supermarkets, Inc., 110 R.I. 242, 244, 292 A.2d 235, 236 (1972). When a defendant files a motion to dismiss, the court must view the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with all doubts resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the motion may not be granted unless it "appears beyond a reasonable doubt that a plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief under any conceivable set of facts which might be proven in support of his claims * * *." Ryan, --- R.I. at ---, 420 A.2d at 843; Berberian v. Solomon, 122 R.I. 259, 262, 405 A.2d 1178, 1180 (1979); Dutson, 119 R.I. at 804, 383 A.2d at 599.

Although several grounds for failure of a plaintiff's complaint to state a claim may be asserted under the rule, the only one that is relevant to the case at bar is the assertion that the plaintiff's claim for relief is based upon an unconstitutional statute. When the statute upon which a complainant's claim for relief is based is found to be unconstitutional, it follows logically that there is no conceivable set of facts that could support plaintiff's claim. Consequently, the legal basis for the plaintiff's claim would be eliminated and a defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be granted as a matter of law.

In order for a statute to be found to be unconstitutionally vague and therefore violative of the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the statute must be such that its wording fails to alert the public of the statute's scope and meaning. As we stated in State v. Picillo, 105 R.I. 364, 369, 252 A.2d 191, 194 (1969), "the test is whether the language used is commonly understood by persons of ordinary intelligence." The standard to be used by a court to determine the vagueness of a statute is dependent upon the nature of the statute itself. For example, the vagueness of a criminal statute will be more strictly scrutinized than that of an economic regulation. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1193, 71 L.Ed.2d 362, 371 (1982). It would therefore follow that a civil statute would be subjected to a lesser standard of scrutiny for vagueness than that afforded a criminal statute.

When courts construe the meaning of a statute, general rules of construction must be applied. These rules require that courts construing a statute take the intent of the Legislature into account and give specific words in the statute the meaning that would further the legislative purpose. Paola v. Commercial Union Assurance Companies, --- R.I. ---, ---, 461 A.2d 935, 937 (1983); The Rake v. Gorodetsky, --- R.I. ---, ---, 452 A.2d 1144, 1147 (1982). The statute may not be construed in a way that would "attribute to the Legislature an intent that would result in absurdities or would defeat the underlying purpose of legislation." Landrigan v. McElroy, --- R.I. ---, ---, 457 A.2d 1056, 1060-61 (1983); The Rake, --- R.I. at ---, 452 A.2d at 1147. Additionally, unless some special meaning was obviously attributed to the words of a statute by the Legislature, the words will be given their plain and ordinary meaning. State v. O'Rourke, --- R.I. ---, ---, 463 A.2d 1328, 1330 (1983); Blazar v. Perkins, --- R.I. ---, ---, 463 A.2d 203, 206 (1983). Where no possible ambiguity in the meaning of statutory terms would arise, no interpretation is necessary and each term must be given its plain and literal meaning. Beaudoin v. Petit, 122 R.I. 469, 474-75, 409 A.2d 536, 539 (1979). It is this last proposition with which we are most concerned in this case.

In the case at bar, the trial justice apparently questioned the intended meaning of the term "capacity." Without more specific guidance than that given by the Legislature, the trial justice felt that the term "capacity" could not readily be understood by persons who would be affected by the statute and was therefore unconstitutionally vague. We disagree.

The meaning of the term "capacity," as used in § 5.14.2 of the city of Warwick ordinance, is obvious on the face of the statute. See O'Rourke, --- R.I. at ---, 463 A.2d at 1330. The Legislature intended no special meaning, but rather, that the term should simply indicate the amount of tonnage a given vehicle could carry within its cargo area. This meaning of "capacity" is plain on its face as is further evidenced by the fact that the first definition appearing in the dictionary reads as follows:

"1 a: the power or ability to hold, receive, or accommodate * * * b obs : an empty space: a hollowed-out area: CAVITY c: a containing space: a measure of content for gas, liquid, or solid: the amount held: the measured ability to contain: VOLUME * * *." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 330 (1971).

Th...