Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation v. Edward Gordon

Syllabus

The pro se respondent, Ann Gordon, appealed from a Superior Court decree foreclosing her rights of redemption in property purchased by the petitioner, Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation, through exercise of its right of first refusal. On appeal, the respondent submitted, inter alia, that there were procedural defects below, that the amount of taxes claimed to be owed were not owed because of various exemptions, that the hearing justice should have recused himself, and that RIHMFC owed a duty to assist her, which she alleges it breached.<br> <br>The Supreme Court held that the respondent entered into a valid consent order establishing the amount owed for redemption and setting the terms of redemption, and thus that any procedural defects, all of which were alleged to have occurred prior to entering into the consent order, were irrelevant. Additionally, the Supreme Court concluded that the respondent's argument as to recusal was waived and, in any event, meritless, and that RIHMFC did not owe the respondent a statutory duty. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of foreclosure entered by the Superior Court. <br>