Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1856-A,1856-A |
| Citation | 111 R.I. 747,306 A.2d 806 |
| Parties | Richard L. FARRELL et ux. v. MEADOWBROOK CORPORATION. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Edward W. Day, Jr., Providence, for plaintiffs.
Bourcier & Bordieri, John P. Bourcier, Joseph F. Penza, Jr., Providence, for defendant.
The defendant corporation (Meadowbrook) is before us on an appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court after a nonjury trial enjoining Meadowbrook from building a series of garden apartment buildings in a portion of the Garden City section of Cranston.
To most Rhode Islanders, the name Garden City describes an exclusive wellplanned residential development located in Cranston and lying between Pontiac Avenue on its east and Reservoir Avenue on its west. The plaintiffs own a single-family home. Its address is '268 Lawnacre Drive, Garden City, Cranston.' From a legal point of view, the Farrells' property is designated as lot 129 on a recorded plat entitled 'Garden City, Section No. 4, Cranston, Rhode Island, belonging to Garden City Builders, Inc., Peter V. Cipolla, Engineer, August 1951.' Lot 129 is a 79 x 100 foot parcel of real estate. It is typical of the lots found on this plat. The Farrells purchased their home in November, 1954.
Meadowbrook is the owner of lot 144. It is not a typical lot as it measures 11.7 acres in area. A portion of lot 144 is swampy, while another portion becomes inundated when the Pocasset River overflows its banks. Meadowbrook purchased this property on June 22, 1971. Both the Farrells and Meadowbrook purchased their respective lots from the original developer, Garden City Builders, Inc. (Garden City Builders). The Farrells' property abuts the Meadowbrook land. Entrance to lot 144 is had by way of a 50-foot strip of land which fronts on Lawnacre Drive.
The Farrells rest their suit upon a recorded-plat restriction which provides that 'No structures shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any residential building plot other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed two and one half stories in height and a detached garage for not more than two cars.' '(R)esidential building plot' is not defined. The various lots which appear on the plat map are identified by number, not type. It is agreed, however, that at the time the plat was recorded, the area it depicts was zoned residential.
We agree with the trial justice when he remarked that the very size of lot 144 creates an ambiguity as to whether lot 144 was to be considered the site for one single-family residence or as a location on which several one-family homes could be built. Recorded plats are writings that come within the interdictions of the parol evidence rule. Swanson v. Gillan, 54 R.I. 382, 173 A. 122 (1934). However, the rule presupposes a clearly written unambiguous document. The trial justice was justified in considering parol or extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the developer to resolve the future use of the 11.7-acre lot. Hawkins v. Smith, 105 R.I. 669, 254 A.2d 747 (1969).
Testimony was given by several property owners to the effect that when they purchased their conventionally-sized lots from Garden City Builders, they were told by officials and sales personnel of the developer that it was very unlikely lot 144 would ever be used but that if it were, it would be subject to the same restrictions as all of the other lots on the plat.
Witnesses who were active in the sale of lots on the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newport Realty, Inc. v. Lynch
...the same." "Recorded plats are writings that come within the interdictions of the parol evidence rule." Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp., 111 R.I. 747, 749, 306 A.2d 806, 807 (1973). This rule, however, "presupposes a clearly written unambiguous document." Id. Only when a trial justice is confr......
-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
...Farrell, 111 R.I. at 747, 306 A.2d at 807 (internal quotations omitted), the rule itself "presupposes a clearly written unambiguous document." Id. Thus, if a plat is to more than one interpretation, extrinsic evidence is admissible to aid in its interpretation. W.P. Assocs., 637 A.2d at 356......
-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
...or extrinsic evidence may be considered to clear up the ambiguity. Newport Realty, 878 A.2d at 1034 (citing Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp., 111 R.I. 747, 749, 306 A.2d 806, 807 (1973)).12BCourt's Findings1909 Plat and the Indenture Must Be Construed As a Single Instrument The 1909 Plat and th......
-
The Shelter Harbor Conservation Soc'y Inc. v. Rogers
...evidence may be adduced by the litigants.”) (emphasis added). What was said of the plat at issue in Farrell v. Meadowbrook Corp., 111 R.I. 747, 749, 306 A.2d 806, 807 (1973), can be applied to the problem that the map at issue in this case poses: “Recorded plats are writings that come withi......