Salvatore v. Palangio
| Decision Date | 02 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | PC 14-174,No. 2018-92-Appeal.,2018-92-Appeal. |
| Citation | 247 A.3d 1250 |
| Parties | Michael J. SALVATORE v. Thomas A. PALANGIO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Nicole J. Martucci, Esq., Michael A. Kelly, Esq., for Plaintiff.
John J. DeSimone, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, and Robinson, JJ.
This case arises out of a dispute between the plaintiff, Michael Salvatore, and the defendant, Thomas Palangio, concerning the purchase and sale of certain real property in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The dispute between the parties eventually resulted in litigation in the Providence County Superior Court and, finally, in a jury trial in November of 2017. The jury was instructed to consider only the promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment counts at issue; and, on November 10, 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Salvatore on those two counts. Mr. Palangio then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial. The trial justice denied both motions, and Mr. Palangio timely appealed, contending that the trial justice erred in denying those motions. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After examining the written and oral submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the appeal may be resolved without further briefing or argument.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
Mr. Salvatore has maintained that, from 2005 until 2015, he made payments to Mr. Palangio in an amount exceeding $170,000. Mr. Salvatore has further alleged that Mr. Palangio consistently represented that all payments made by Mr. Salvatore during that time would be credited toward his eventual purchase of a particular parcel of real estate owned by Mr. Palangio at 610 Weeden Street in Pawtucket (the Weeden Street property). Mr. Palangio, by contrast, has maintained that the payments made to him by Mr. Salvatore were compensation for Mr. Palangio's work as Mr. Salvatore's agent in the automotive business.
On May 29, 2015, Mr. Salvatore filed an eight-count amended complaint1 in Superior Court; Mr. Palangio was the only named defendant. The amended complaint contains the following counts: promissory estoppel (Count One); fraud in the inducement (Count Two); intentional misrepresentation (Count Three); unjust enrichment (Count Four); unlawful appropriation in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-41-11.1 (Count Five); false pretenses in violation of § 11-41-4 (Count Six); violation of G.L. 1956 § 36-14-5 () (Count Seven); and a request for injunctive relief (Count Eight).
Before the trial commenced, Mr. Palangio filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude any references to Mr. Palangio's former status as a state representative. He further moved to strike Counts Five, Six, and Seven of the amended complaint. He contended essentially that the introduction of evidence as to these counts would have a "prejudicial effect and would certainly confuse the jury."
After a hearing, the trial justice denied the motion in limine . He did state, however, that he would limit the number of references made during trial to Mr. Palangio's former status as a state representative if "it's getting out of hand and it's being used from [sic ] some purpose other than the facts that are being testified to * * *." The trial justice also denied the motions to strike Counts Five, Six, and Seven before trial; but he went on to explicitly state: "[I]f at the end of the Plaintiff's case there is not evidence before the [c]ourt or jury where a jury could find the elements of these offenses by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the [c]ourt will dismiss those causes of action."
The case was heard by a jury on various dates in November of 2017. We relate below the salient aspects of what transpired at that trial.
Mr. Salvatore testified that he owned and operated two small businesses, State Towing Service, Inc. (State Towing) and State Auto Sales and Repair (State Auto Sales); he added that he had also owned fifteen to seventeen pieces of real estate throughout his career.2 He further testified that, although State Auto Sales dealt with "used cars, a little bit of retail, [and] a little bit of wholesale," the "biggest part is the towing end." In fact, Mr. Salvatore testified that the services of State Towing were utilized by various clients, including "the Providence police tow list, Rhode Island state police tow list, the Providence Housing Authority, along with the Rhode Island Housing authority and then various private properties, properties located in the [sic ] downtown Providence throughout the City of Providence, North Providence."
Mr. Salvatore stated that, although he and Mr. Palangio were distant cousins, they did not become familiar with each other until 2005. Mr. Salvatore further stated that, after he began associating with Mr. Palangio in 2005, Mr. Palangio told Mr. Salvatore that he "owned land in Pawtucket and he was going to be selling it and he thought it would be a perfect opportunity for [Mr. Salvatore] to purchase it in the nature of the business that [Mr. Salvatore is] in." Mr. Salvatore testified that he later learned that the land to which Mr. Palangio had referred was located in Pawtucket. He further testified that Mr. Palangio told him that acquiring the property in Pawtucket would "increase [Mr. Salvatore's] business" because, as a result of its location, he would be able to be on the Pawtucket and Central Falls police tow lists.
Mr. Salvatore testified that, at some point in late 2005 or early 2006, after having had several conversations with Mr. Palangio about the Weeden Street property, he accompanied him to view the property. Mr. Salvatore stated that the two of them viewed the Weeden Street property—which consisted of a vacant lot as well as a building—for some twenty to thirty minutes. He further stated that Mr. Palangio offered to sell the vacant lot for $100,000 and to sell the building for another $100,000. Mr. Salvatore then testified that, in 2006 or 2007, he met with Mr. Palangio and one Nicholas D'Amico, who was Mr. Palangio's business partner and co-owner of the Weeden Street property. He further testified that, when Mr. Palangio introduced him to Mr. D'Amico, Mr. Palangio "explained to Mr. D'Amico that [his] cousin [Mr. Salvatore] is going to be purchasing this property." He stated that Mr. Palangio further said: "I'm going to help [Mr. Salvatore] get on the Pawtucket Central Falls police tow list so he can have a second location for his towing business."
Mr. Salvatore further testified that, before he had received any formal documentation, he made ten to twelve payments to Mr. Palangio with his understanding being that the payments would be credited toward his purchase of the Weeden Street property. He further testified that, in 2007, Mr. Palangio presented him with a document entitled "Offer to Purchase Real Estate" (the Purchase Agreement), which document was entered as an exhibit at trial. On that document, Mr. Palangio had handwritten pertinent information about the property—including a description of the land, the purchase price of the vacant lot, and a right of first refusal to purchase the building adjacent to the vacant lot. Mr. Salvatore stated that he signed the Purchase Agreement in the presence of Mr. Palangio, who told Mr. Salvatore that both he and Mr. D'Amico would subsequently sign the document. Neither Mr. Palangio nor Mr. D'Amico ever signed the Purchase Agreement, and Mr. Salvatore testified that he "never saw that document again."
Mr. Salvatore testified that he made numerous payments to Mr. Palangio, which varied in amount.3 He stated that, in addition to vehicle repair services, those payments consisted of cash and checks and health insurance payments. Notably, Mr. Salvatore testified that, when he wrote the checks to Mr. Palangio, he included various notations on the memorandum line referencing the Weeden Street property; the checks, which were entered as exhibits at trial, included notations which stated "Pawt land" and "land Pawt." Furthermore, he stated that, following Mr. Palangio's advice, he paid $2,500 for the services of a surveyor, who was recommended by Mr. Palangio, to conduct a survey of the property.
Mr. Salvatore testified that, at some point at the end of 2013 or in 2014, he "took it [that] the property wasn't being put in [his] name," and he ceased making payments to Mr. Palangio. Mr. Salvatore further testified that, although he made many attempts to speak to Mr. Palangio about the transfer of the property, Mr. Palangio did not manifest any intent to deed the property to him. Mr. Salvatore also testified that he then requested that Mr. Palangio refund all the money that he had paid toward his purchase of the property. He added, however, that his attempts at obtaining a refund came to an end at some point in 2014, when Mr. Palangio threatened to file a restraining order against him and to have his business removed from the state police tow list.4
Mr. Salvatore has consistently maintained that he never received either the Weeden Street property or anything else of value from Mr. Palangio as a result of the various payments which he made to Mr. Palangio.
Mr. Palangio testified that, beginning in approximately 1986, he started participating in the used car business and that he also bought and sold both commercial and residential real estate. He stated that he had purchased ten to twelve properties since 1986, including the Weeden Street property, which he purchased along with Mr. D'Amico. Mr. Palangio further stated that, a few years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. McKee
..."our usual policy of not opining with respect to issues about which we need not opine"); see also Salvatore v. Palangio , 247 A.3d 1250, 1258 n.7 (R.I. 2021) (Robinson, J.) (citing Grady ); IDC Clambakes, Inc. v. Carney as Trustee of Goat Island Realty Trust , 246 A.3d 927, 935 n.6, 936 n.8......