Paul R. Boisse v. Joseph R. Miller, Jr. d/b/a Joseph Miller Construction ( 2022 )

February 1, 2022
Supreme Court
No. 2020-78-Appeal.
(WC 03-281)
Paul R. Boisse et al. :
v. :
Joseph R. Miller, Jr. d/b/a Joseph :
Miller Construction et al.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email: opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any
typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court
No. 2020-78-Appeal.
(WC 03-281)
Paul R. Boisse et al. :
v. :
Joseph R. Miller, Jr. d/b/a Joseph :
Miller Construction et al.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Goldberg, for the Court. This case came before the Supreme
Court on November 3, 2021, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear
and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily
decided. The defendants, Joseph R. Miller Jr. d/b/a Joseph Miller Construction
(Joseph) and Lynne N. Miller (Lynne) (collectively defendants), appeal pro se
from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Paul R. Boisse and
Michele C. Boisse (the Boisses or plaintiffs), granting the plaintiffs’ claims against
Lynne and Joseph, and also in favor of the third-party defendant, Assurance
Company of America (Assurance), denying Joseph’s third-party claim for
-1-
indemnification.1 After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions, we
conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this
time. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior
Court.
Facts and Travel
This controversy arose from the sale of real property in South Kingstown,
Rhode Island, including a lot and a newly constructed home, which, it was later
revealed, encroached upon an adjacent lot containing a utility easement. In 1998
Lynne sold the Boisses Lot 15 in the Pleasant Hills subdivision, along with all
buildings and improvements (the property or Lot 15). Four years later, the Boisses
were notified by National Grid that their house, deck, and well encroached on the
company’s easement.
The record discloses that Lynne purchased Lot 15 in early 1998 through a
limited power of attorney in favor of her then ex-husband, Joseph, who intended to
build a residential home on the lot for sale. Joseph took the lead on construction,
and, according to certain site plans, he positioned the property for the excavation
and construction of the house, its well, and the driveway. Joseph also directed the
1
We refer to the defendants by their first names for the sake of clarity because they
share the same surname. We intend no disrespect by doing so. Additionally, while
Pleasant Hill Development, Ltd.; Mark L. Hawkins; Thomas A. Champlin; and
Assurance Company of America were also named defendants in plaintiffs’ second
amended complaint filed in the Superior Court, Lynne and Joseph are the only
defendants who have appealed.
-2-
contractors on where to construct the site improvements, which resulted in a
twenty-foot encroachment upon the adjacent lot.
In 2003 the Boisses filed suit asserting various claims, and Joseph, by and
through counsel, filed a third-party complaint for indemnification against his
insurance company, Assurance, which was later summarily dismissed.2
After a bench trial, the trial justice determined that Lynne was liable for
breach of the warranty deed conveying the property to plaintiffs by failing to
convey good and marketable title to the property. The trial justice also found that
Joseph had knowledge of the encroachment, yet had misrepresented the property
line and failed to disclose the encroachment to the Boisses.3 As a result, the trial
justice determined that Joseph was liable for fraud, misrepresentation, and
wrongful concealment of a material fact, and that these misrepresentations and
omissions constituted a violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, chapter 13.1 of title 6 of the general laws.
2
During the pendency of this action, Joseph filed for bankruptcy, the discharge of
which effectively settled the claim of negligence against him. Accordingly, Joseph
and Assurance filed cross-motions for summary judgment on his claim for
indemnification. The Superior Court granted Joseph’s motion with respect to the
claim of negligence; and, having found that only intentional tort claims survived
and that his insurance policy did not protect him against intentional acts, the
Superior Court summarily dismissed Joseph’s indemnification claim.
3
Based on the record before the Court, the site plans showed the proposed location
of a house, driveway, and well within the contours of Lot 15.
-3-
Judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs and against Joseph and Lynne in the
amount of $178,891.46, and in favor of Assurance on Joseph’s third-party claim.
Joseph and Lynne timely appealed to this Court and have raised several claims,
some of which are not clearly articulated. On appeal, they argue that (1)
Assurance sold Joseph a fraudulent insurance policy and should be held
accountable; (2) a codefendant was allowed to amend an answer years after
initiation of the action “under his company name” and had “these papers sealed by
the court”; (3) the trial justice found defendants liable “in a revised case[,]” which
they were unable to defend themselves against; and (4) Lynne’s attorney failed to
inform her that she was found liable in 20114 and that judgment entered against her
for damages in 2019.5
Standard of Review
“A judgment in a nonjury case will be reversed on appeal when it can be
shown that the trial justice misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked
material evidence or made factual findings that were clearly wrong.” Lamarque v.
Centreville Savings Bank, 22 A.3d 1136, 1139-40 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Cathay
4
There was a bifurcated bench trial addressing liability (tried in late 2011) and
damages (tried in late 2019). Joseph and Lynne were represented by counsel
throughout all proceedings in the Superior Court.
5
We have endeavored to articulate and set forth defendants’ arguments from their
handwritten statement submitted to this Court on appeal pursuant to Article I, Rule
12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure and to clarify the
substance of their arguments at oral argument.
-4-
Cathay, Inc. v. Vindalu, LLC, 962 A.2d 740, 745 (R.I. 2009)). Upon review, “we
accord [the factual] findings [of a trial justice sitting without a jury] great
deference” and consider questions of law de novo. Id. at 1140. Additionally,
according to this Court’s longstanding raise-or-waive rule, “a litigant cannot raise
an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial
court.” Cusick v. Cusick, 210 A.3d 1199, 1203 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Rohena v. City
of Providence, 154 A.3d 935, 938 (R.I. 2017)).
Analysis
On appeal, defendants first argue that, in a separate and unrelated case,
Assurance was found liable for selling Joseph a fraudulent policy and did not
disclose this to the Superior Court. However, the issue of Assurance’s liability in
another case was not raised before the trial justice. To the extent that defendants
believed that this other case was of any moment to this controversy, they were
required to first raise this issue in the Superior Court. By virtue of their having
failed to do so, the trial justice was deprived of an opportunity to consider this
argument, which constitutes waiver by defendants.
In addition, defendants assert that a codefendant, Mark Hawkins, was
“allowed to amend an answer” years after initiation of the action and had “these
papers sealed by the court.” The defendants first raised this issue in their statement
filed pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate
-5-
Procedure and discussed papers that were allegedly “sealed by the court[,]” and at
oral argument, they alluded to a “secret meeting” that occurred between some of
the parties and the court, to their exclusion. Specifically, based on their later
examination of the docket, defendants take issue with events that occurred on
December 17, 2007; July 14, 2011; and July 18, 2011.
However, the docket discloses only ordinary trial preparation and
procedures, including that (1) on December 17, 2007, a motion for leave to file an
amended answer, filed by counsel for Joseph, was granted after a hearing; (2) on
July 14, 2011, Hawkins, together with Lynne—a party to this appeal—and a third-
party defendant, filed an answer to the Boisses’ “Revised Second Amended
Complaint” and certified that a true copy was mailed to counsel for Joseph; (3) on
July 18, 2011, trial exhibits were filed in the clerk’s office and were available to all
parties, following an appearance by the parties for trial, at which exhibits were
marked and put on the record and the trial was continued pending settlement
discussions; and (4) on that same date, Assurance filed an answer to the Boisses’
revised second amended complaint. There is no suggestion in the record that
anything occurred in camera or that documents were sealed. Furthermore, this
argument was not raised in the Superior Court, and there is nothing in the record
before this Court that indicates that defendants objected to any amended pleading.
Thus, the issue has been waived.
-6-
The defendants also contend that the trial justice found them liable “[i]n a
revised case” against which they were purportedly not allowed to defend
themselves. As there is no reference in the trial justice’s decision to a “revised
case[,]” we can only assume that defendants take issue with the Boisses’ “Revised
Second Amended Complaint” filed on April 21, 2011.6 The defendants did not
object to the Boisses’ motion to amend or to the filing of the revised second
amended complaint. Thus, this issue has also been waived.
Finally, in their statement filed pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A, defendants
aver that Lynne’s attorney did not notify her of the case outcome. On appeal from
a judgment following a bench trial, this Court reviews preserved errors of the
Superior Court, not of counsel when such a claim has not first been properly
addressed in the trial court. See Cruz v. Town of North Providence, 833 A.2d 1237,
1240 n.1 (R.I. 2003) (declining to entertain claims raised for the first time on
appeal); see also Super. R. Civ. P. 3 and Super. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (stating that a civil
action is commenced by filing a complaint setting forth the claim for relief). Thus,
this issue is not properly before this Court, and we decline to address it.
6
According to the record, in late 2010, the Boisses added Assurance and Zurich
America Insurance Co. (Zurich) as defendants in a second amended complaint.
Their revised second amended complaint removed Zurich as a defendant.
-7-
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The record in this case may be remanded to the Superior Court.
-8-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Paul R. Boisse, et al. v. Joseph R. Miller, Jr. d/b/a
Title of Case
Joseph Miller Construction et al.
No. 2020-78-Appeal.
Case Number
(WC 03-281)
Date Opinion Filed February 1, 2022
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg
Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter
For Plaintiffs:
Francis S. Holbrook II, Esq.
Turner C. Scott, Esq.
For Defendants:
Attorney(s) on Appeal
Daniel F. Sullivan, Esq.
Dana M. Horton, Esq.
Joseph R. Miller, Jr., Pro Se
Lynne N. Miller, Pro Se
SU-CMS-02A (revised June 2020)