Linda L. Glynn, alias, individually and as Trustee of the Linda L. Glynn Revocable Trust Agreement dated January 14, 2016

The plaintiff, Mauro Poletti, appealed from a December 21, 2018 Providence County Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Gonsalves-Pastore Realty, LLC, d/b/a Century 21 (Gonsalves-Pastore), pursuant to a grant of Gonsalves-Pastore's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the hearing justice erred in determining that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Gonsalves-Pastore owed plaintiff a duty based on a fiduciary relationship or as an employer of the person who allegedly committed the wrongful acts. The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice properly granted summary judgment in favor of Gonsalves-Pastore on the basis that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether or not Gonsalves-Pastore owed plaintiff a duty. Specifically, the Court held that the evidence in the record did not support the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties because there was no agreement for Gonsalves-Pastore to carry out plaintiff's investment plan, and their relationship did not go beyond an ordinary business relationship. The Court also held that Gonsalves-Pastore was not liable as an employer because, even assuming that the alleged wrongful actor were an employee, her acts of malfeasance were outside the scope of any such employment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The plaintiff, Mauro Poletti, appealed from a December 21, 2018 Providence County Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Gonsalves-Pastore Realty, LLC, d/b/a Century 21 (Gonsalves-Pastore), pursuant to a grant of Gonsalves-Pastore's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the hearing justice erred in determining that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Gonsalves-Pastore owed plaintiff a duty based on a fiduciary relationship or as an employer of the person who allegedly committed the wrongful acts. The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice properly granted summary judgment in favor of Gonsalves-Pastore on the basis that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether or not Gonsalves-Pastore owed plaintiff a duty. Specifically, the Court held that the evidence in the record did not support the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties because there was no agreement for Gonsalves-Pastore to carry out plaintiff's investment plan, and their relationship did not go beyond an ordinary business relationship. The Court also held that Gonsalves-Pastore was not liable as an employer because, even assuming that the alleged wrongful actor were an employee, her acts of malfeasance were outside the scope of any such employment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.