DocketNumber: C.A. 91-2753
Judges: <underline>GIBNEY. J.</underline>
Filed Date: 11/20/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
During the meeting, Mr. Restrepo and defendant, through his attorney, reached a compromise agreement. Defendant agreed to pay $6,000 in monthly installments of $400. The remaining amount would be abated. Defendant's attorney sent Mr. Restrepo a letter (see attachment to plaintiff's affidavit) on October 28, 1988, confirming the agreement reached the preceding day. The record indicates that defendant never filed an appeal with the local assessor pursuant to R.I.G.L. §
Plaintiff filed a complaint with the District Court, Sixth Division, seeking to collect the unpaid taxes on December 26, 1990. On April 9, 1991 the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed this decision to this court where plaintiff has renewed his motion for summary judgment.
Defendant asserts, in his defense, that he has no tax liability because "officials from the tax department" told defendant in 1987 that his business was exempt from the tax. (Affidavit of Arthur Smith). Even if this were true, R.I.G.L. §
Further, defendant has waived this defense by agreeing to pay $6,000 of the disputed tax assessment. "Settlement of a disputed liability is as conclusive of the parties' rights as is a judgment that terminates litigation between them." Homar, Inc.v. North Farm Associates,
Defendant alleges no other factual dispute. After careful consideration of the pleadings and affidavits submitted, this Court finds that no material issue of fact exists. This Court finds that the undisputed facts demonstrate that defendant made a valid agreement settling his tax liability with the plaintiff. Defendant has broken that agreement. The undisputed facts demonstrate that defendant is delinquent in paying tangible taxes assessed under R.I.G.L. §
Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. Rule 56, this Court grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Counsel shall prepare an order in conformity with this decision.
McGee v. Stone , 522 A.2d 211 ( 1987 )
Northgate Associates v. Shorey , 541 A.2d 1192 ( 1988 )
Trend Precious Metals Co. v. Sammartino, Inc. , 577 A.2d 986 ( 1990 )
Homar, Inc. v. North Farm Associates , 445 A.2d 288 ( 1982 )
O'Hara v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance , 574 A.2d 135 ( 1990 )