statute of limitations bar in Rhode Island

2023This Court “ha[s] permitted a statute-of-limitations defense to be raised by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) —providing the alleged timing defect appears on the face of the complaint.” Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291, 297 (R.I. 2001).

2019Additionally, "[a] party may raise a statute-of-limitations defense by way of a motion to dismiss, 'provided the alleged timing defect appears on the face of the complaint.' " Barrette v. Yakavonis , 966 A.2d 1231 , 1234 (R.I. 2009) (brackets omitted) (quoting Martin v. Howard , 784 A.2d 291 , 297 (R.I. 2001) ).

2009A party may raise a statute-of-limitations defense by way of a motion to dismiss, “provid[ed] the alleged timing defect appears on the face of the complaint.” Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291, 297 (R.I.2001) (citing Boghossian v. Ferland Corp., 600 A.2d 288, 290 (R.I.1991)).

2001Boghossian v. Ferland Corp., 600 A.2d 288, 290 (R.I.1991); McDonald v. Rhode Island General Council, 505 A.2d 1176, 1178 (R.I.1986); see also 1 Kent, R.I.

2011"A party alleging acquiescence must show that a boundary marker existed and the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations to bar a reentry for ten years." Locke , 610 A.2d at 556 . * * * Therefore, "the claimant must prove that the purported boundary line has been obvious to the allegedly acquiescing party." Powell on Real Property at 68-28.

2010"Like adverse possession, the doctrine of acquiescence to an observable physical boundary line constitutes a recognized means by which a claimant can gain title to the real estate encompassed by that boundary line, even though another party clearly possesses record title to that land." Pucino v. Uttley , 785 A.2d 183 , 186 (R.I. 2001) (citing DelSesto v. Unknown Heirs of Lewis , 754 A.2d 91 , 95 (R.I. 2000)). "[A] party alleging acquiescence must show that a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations

2026This is a two-part test, as “[t]he party claiming ownership by acquiescence must show ‘that a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to - 19 - that prescribed in the statute of limitations to bar a reentry, or ten years.’” DeCosta, 819 A.2d at 1264 (quoting Pucino v. Uttley, 785 A.2d 183, 187 (R.I. 2001)).

2010"Like adverse possession, the doctrine of acquiescence to an observable physical boundary line constitutes a recognized means by which a claimant can gain title to the real estate encompassed by that boundary line, even though another party clearly possesses record title to that land." Pucino v. Uttley , 785 A.2d 183 , 186 (R.I. 2001) (citing DelSesto v. Unknown Heirs of Lewis , 754 A.2d 91 , 95 (R.I. 2000)). "[A] party alleging acquiescence must show that a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations

2001Boghossian v. Ferland Corp., 600 A.2d 288, 290 (R.I.1991); McDonald v. Rhode Island General Council, 505 A.2d 1176, 1178 (R.I.1986); see also 1 Kent, R.I.

1991Nevertheless, courts permit the statute-of-limitations defense “to be raised by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in situations in which the defect appears on the face of the complaint.” McDonald v. Rhode Island General Counsel, 505 A.2d 1176, 1178 (R.I.1986); see also 1 Kent, R.I.Civ.Prac. § 12.10 at 116 (1969).

2010"Like adverse possession, the doctrine of acquiescence to an observable physical boundary line constitutes a recognized means by which a claimant can gain title to the real estate encompassed by that boundary line, even though another party clearly possesses record title to that land." Pucino v. Uttley , 785 A.2d 183 , 186 (R.I. 2001) (citing DelSesto v. Unknown Heirs of Lewis , 754 A.2d 91 , 95 (R.I. 2000)). "[A] party alleging acquiescence must show that a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations

2010"Like adverse possession, the doctrine of acquiescence to an observable physical boundary line constitutes a recognized means by which a claimant can gain title to the real estate encompassed by that boundary line, even though another party clearly possesses record title to that land." Pucino v. Uttley , 785 A.2d 183 , 186 (R.I. 2001) (citing DelSesto v. Unknown Heirs of Lewis , 754 A.2d 91 , 95 (R.I. 2000)). "[A] party alleging acquiescence must show that a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations

2006Mr. Brown failed to raise the statute of limitations defense before or at trial, hence "it is waived", Brown v. State, 841 A.2d 1116 , 1121 (2004) citing State v. Lambrechts, 585 A.2d 645 , 646 (R.I., 1991) but the Court noted: [E]ven if Brown had raised this defense at trial, he would not have succeeded on the merits of his statute-of-limitations defense.

2006See State v. Lambrechts, 585 A.2d 645, 646 (R.I.1991); see also Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707, 711 (R.I.2003).

2000Alternatively, a claimant may “gain title to a defendant’s property by operation of the doctrine of acquiescence despite the fact that defendant had record title.” Locke, 610 A.2d at 555 (citing Paquin v. Guiorguiev, 117 R.I. 239 , 366 A.2d 169 (1976)). “[A] party alleging acquiescence must show that a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations to bar a reentry, or ten years.” Locke, 610 A.2d at 556 . “[Acquiescence for the requisite number of years is ‘conclusive evidence of an agreement to establis

2000Alternatively, a claimant may “gain title to a defendant’s property by operation of the doctrine of acquiescence despite the fact that defendant had record title.” Locke, 610 A.2d at 555 (citing Paquin v. Guiorguiev, 117 R.I. 239 , 366 A.2d 169 (1976)). “[A] party alleging acquiescence must show that a boundary marker existed and that the parties recognized that boundary for a period equal to that prescribed in the statute of limitations to bar a reentry, or ten years.” Locke, 610 A.2d at 556 . “[Acquiescence for the requisite number of years is ‘conclusive evidence of an agreement to establis

2026“A determination of acquiescence is a mixed question of law and fact.” Banville v. Brennan, 84 A.3d 424, 431 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Nye v. Brousseau, 992 A.2d 1002, 1009 (R.I. 2010)).

2026“A determination of acquiescence is a mixed question of law and fact.” Banville v. Brennan, 84 A.3d 424, 431 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Nye v. Brousseau, 992 A.2d 1002, 1009 (R.I. 2010)).

2013See O’Sullivan v. Rhode Island Hospital, 874 A.2d 179, 182-83 (R.I.2005) (explaining that, where the material facts are undisputed, the viability of a particular statute-of-limitations defense appropriately is decided at the summary-judgment stage); see also Hanson, 898 A.2d at 1248 (“The application of the statute of limitations is a matter of law for the trial justice to determine.” quoting Ashey, 618 A.2d at 1270 ); Dionne v. Baute, 589 A.2d 833, 835 (R.I.1991).

2013See O’Sullivan v. Rhode Island Hospital, 874 A.2d 179, 182-83 (R.I.2005) (explaining that, where the material facts are undisputed, the viability of a particular statute-of-limitations defense appropriately is decided at the summary-judgment stage); see also Hanson, 898 A.2d at 1248 (“The application of the statute of limitations is a matter of law for the trial justice to determine.” quoting Ashey, 618 A.2d at 1270 ); Dionne v. Baute, 589 A.2d 833, 835 (R.I.1991).

2013See O’Sullivan v. Rhode Island Hospital, 874 A.2d 179, 182-83 (R.I.2005) (explaining that, where the material facts are undisputed, the viability of a particular statute-of-limitations defense appropriately is decided at the summary-judgment stage); see also Hanson, 898 A.2d at 1248 (“The application of the statute of limitations is a matter of law for the trial justice to determine.” quoting Ashey, 618 A.2d at 1270 ); Dionne v. Baute, 589 A.2d 833, 835 (R.I.1991).

2013See O’Sullivan v. Rhode Island Hospital, 874 A.2d 179, 182-83 (R.I.2005) (explaining that, where the material facts are undisputed, the viability of a particular statute-of-limitations defense appropriately is decided at the summary-judgment stage); see also Hanson, 898 A.2d at 1248 (“The application of the statute of limitations is a matter of law for the trial justice to determine.” quoting Ashey, 618 A.2d at 1270 ); Dionne v. Baute, 589 A.2d 833, 835 (R.I.1991).

2013In response, DHS argued that, because a claim is a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process requirements, the estate’s failure to give notice that Manchester’s estate had opened for probate precluded it from raising the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. 7 Relying on precedent from this Court as well as the United States Supreme Court, it maintained that “[the] estate cannot thwart a legitimate claim using a statute of limitations defense if [it] has failed to give notice to * * * a known or reasonably ascertainable claimant.” See Tulsa Professional

2011Id. at 725 , 108 S.Ct. 2117 (citing Little v. Blunt, 26 Mass. 488, 492 (1830) and Wetzell v. Bussard, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 309, 311 , 6 L.Ed. 481 (1826)).

2011Id. at 725 , 108 S.Ct. 2117 (citing Little v. Blunt, 26 Mass. 488, 492 (1830) and Wetzell v. Bussard, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 309, 311 , 6 L.Ed. 481 (1826)).

2011II Standard of Review When considering issues brought before us pursuant to a writ of certiorari, “this Court conducts a de novo review with respect to all applicable questions of law.” Lynch v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 994 A.2d 64, 70 (R.I.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011II Standard of Review When considering issues brought before us pursuant to a writ of certiorari, "this Court conducts a de novo review with respect to all applicable questions of law." Lynch v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 994 A.2d 64, 70 (R.I.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).