Richard Manfredi v. Robert Craven, Administrator of the Estate of Viola Manfredi

Supreme Court
No. 2022-104-Appeal.
(WC 21-311)
Richard Manfredi :
v. :
Robert Craven, Administrator of the :
Estate of Viola Manfredi, et al.
ORDER
This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on February 22,
2023, 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 plaintiff, Richard
Manfredi (Richard), appeals from a Superior Court order denying his complaint for
partition to sell the entirety of the subject property, granting the defendant, Cosmo
Manfredi’s (Cosmo) counterclaim for partition, and appointing Robert Craven,
Administrator of the Estate of Viola Manfredi (Craven), as commissioner to partition
the property by metes and bounds. 1 On appeal, Richard asserts that the trial justice
erred in: (1) failing to partition all of the properties inherited by the parties; (2)
excluding certain testimony; and (3) her factual findings regarding the plot map.
After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and carefully reviewing
1
The Manfredis are brothers. Throughout this order, we will refer to them by their
first name for sake of clarity. No disrespect is intended.
-1-
the record, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown. For the reasons set forth
herein, we dismiss Richard’s appeal and remand this action to the Superior Court.
In July 2021, Richard brought the instant action for partition against Craven,
as Administrator of the Estate of Viola Manfredi, and his brothers, Cosmo and
Joseph Manfredi (Joseph). After hearing testimony relating to the subject property,
a justice of the Superior Court entered an order denying Richard’s complaint for
partition to sell the entire property, granting Cosmo’s counterclaim for partition, and
appointing Craven commissioner pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 34-15-24 to partition the
property by metes and bounds. No final judgment has entered as the order does not
resolve the entirety of the dispute between the parties. In the order assigning this
case to the show-cause calendar, we directed the parties to address whether this
appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory. The parties, however, elected not to
file supplemental statements addressing this question.
It is well settled that appeals from interlocutory orders are not permitted unless
they fall within two well-defined exceptions. DeMaria v. Sabetta, 121 R.I. 648, 649,
402 A.2d 738, 739 (1979). The first allows an appeal from an interlocutory order
that grants or continues an injunction, appoints a receiver, or orders a sale of real or
personal property. G.L. 1956 § 9-24-7. The second, first announced in McAuslan v.
McAuslan, 34 R.I. 462, 83 A. 837 (1912), permits appellate review of an “order or
decree which, although in a strict sense interlocutory, does possess such an element
-2-
of finality that action is called for before the case is finally terminated in order to
prevent clearly imminent and irreparable harm.” Town of Lincoln v. Cournoyer, 118
R.I. 644, 648, 375 A.2d 410, 412-13 (1977). The matter before us does not fall under
either of these exceptions.
This Court stated, almost a century ago, that “[a] decree in a partition suit,
appointing a commissioner to partition land by metes and bounds does not conform
with [the] definition of a final decree” as set forth in McAuslan. Whipple v. Wales,
46 R.I. 81, 81, 125 A. 81, 81 (1924). The order before us requires further action by
Craven to divide the property by metes and bounds and then report such action to
the Superior Court for entry of a final decree. Additionally, all of the estate property
that is subject to the dispute must be addressed in the final judgment. Therefore, it is
plainly interlocutory and not properly before us.
Because this Court is mindful of the toll that litigation of this nature can take
on the parties, particularly on a familial relationship, we encourage the parties to
pursue settlement. See Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Company, 799 A.2d 997, 1012
(R.I. 2002).
Accordingly, the instant appeal is denied and dismissed. The papers in this
case may be remanded to the Superior Court.
-3-
Entered as an Order of this Court this __
5 th day of _____,
April 2023.
By Order,
/s/ Debra A. Saunders, Clerk
_______________________
Clerk
-4-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Richard Manfredi v. Robert Craven, Administrator of
Title of Case
the Estate of Viola Manfredi, et al.
No. 2022-104-Appeal.
Case Number
(WC 21-311)
Date Order Filed April 5, 2023
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter
For Plaintiff:
Raymond T. Trebisacci, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:
Robert E. Craven, Esq.
Steven H. Surdut, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)