Robert Schmidt v. Rhode Island Division of Taxation

In this property dispute between neighbors, Michelle A. Blechman and James W. Blechman (collectively, plaintiffs), appealed from a Superior Court judgment, following a bench trial, in favor of the defendant, Donald Woodward. The plaintiffs argued that the trial justice erred: (1) in her determination that they failed to show hostile and adverse use of the disputed area by clear and convincing evidence; (2) by failing to conduct a proper analysis of each element of adverse possession under G.L. 1956 § 34-7-1; (3) by finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite ten-year period necessary to succeed on an acquiescence claim; and (4) in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for a prescriptive easement without complying with Rule 52(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. After carefully considering each of the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The respondent, Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island (ERSRI), sought review by a writ of certiorari of a Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) order denying its motion to dismiss an appeal by the petitioner, Sean M. O'Connell (Mr. O'Connell), of a state retirement board decision denying his request for an accidental disability pension. ERSRI argued, as it had before the WCC, that the WCC lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a state employee's denial of benefits. This Court concluded that the WCC lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Mr. O'Connell's appeal because a state employee's entitlement to benefits is adjudicated pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 36-10-14, which does not contain a provision authorizing appeals to the WCC. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the order of the WCC denying ERSRI's motion to dismiss and remanded the case with instructions that the WCC dismiss Mr. O'Connell's appeal.

The plaintiff, Clifton Peasley (plaintiff or Peasley), appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his action for declaratory relief, which sought, inter alia, a decree that he was entitled to back pay. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine. In this respect, it was undisputed that before commencing the action for declaratory relief, the plaintiff had filed a grievance seeking back pay, which proceeding remained pending in arbitration. Peasley's efforts to compare the provisions of the Teachers' Tenure Act with the landmark antidiscrimination protections discussed in Weeks v. 735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC, 85 A.3d 1147 (R.I. 2014), was unavailing. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed.