Skip to main content

Note Capital Group, Inc. v. Michele Perretta

RIMay 23, 2019No. 2017-7-Appeal. (PC 14-5678)Cited 11 times
Mixed ResultMichele Perretta

Case Details

Judge(s)
Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, Indeglia
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

In this foreclosure action, the defendants, Michele Perretta and Anna M. Perretta, appeal from a Superior Court order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Note Capital Group, Inc. First, the Perrettas argued that an appeal from the Superior Court's interlocutory order was appropriate because the grant of partial summary judgment had an element of finality, as that order allowed Note Capital to foreclose on the Perrettas' property. Second, the Perrettas contended that Note Capital was not entitled to enforce the note because the chain of title of the note was tainted by an improper transfer. Third, the Perrettas proffered that, due to the existence of several versions of the lost note, the hearing justice had erred in granting summary judgment. Fourth, the Perrettas averred that Note Capital was not entitled to enforce the note evidencing a debt owed on their property because the note had been lost by the previous holder of the note, American Residential Equities, LIX, LLC, prior to its assignment to Note Capital. The Supreme Court first held that the Perrettas' interlocutory appeal was proper because it fell into the exception permitting appeals from interlocutory orders regarding a sale of real or personal property. Second, the Court held that the Perrettas lacked standing to contest the allegedly tainted transfer because the doctrine of estoppel by deed rendered that transfer voidable and not void. Finally, the Court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the hearing justice had made an impermissible factual determination regarding the validity of the lost note, in light of the fact that several versions of the note had been entered into the record below. Accordingly, the Court vacated the order of the Superior Court and remanded the case, with instructions that the Superior Court may consider, inter alia, the Supreme Court's opinion in SMS Financial XXV, LLC v. Corsetti, 186 A.3d 1060 (R.I. 2018).

What This Ruling Means

This case was actually about a foreclosure dispute, not an employment law matter. Note Capital Group, Inc. sued Michele Perretta and Anna M. Perretta to foreclose on their property. The Perrettas challenged a court order that allowed Note Capital to move forward with taking their home. The court reached a mixed decision on the Perrettas' appeal. The Perrettas argued they had the right to appeal an intermediate court ruling because it would lead to them losing their property, making it serious enough to challenge immediately. However, the case excerpt cuts off before revealing the full outcome of their arguments. For workers, this case doesn't directly impact employment rights since it's primarily a real estate foreclosure matter rather than a workplace dispute. The case appears to have been misclassified as employment law. Workers dealing with actual employment issues should look to cases that specifically address workplace rights, wage disputes, discrimination, or wrongful termination. This ruling about foreclosure procedures and appeal rights wouldn't establish any precedents or protections relevant to employment situations. Workers facing job-related legal issues should focus on cases that actually involve employer-employee relationships and workplace law.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Jane Doe v. Brown University
RIJun 2021

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.