Tammi Sousa v. Gilbert Roy, Jr., individually and as Trustee of The Gilbert F. Roy, Jr. Residence Trust—2005.

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Tammi Sousa and Charles G. Thibeault III, appealed from the grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant, Gilbert F. Roy, Jr., individually and as trustee of The Gilbert F. Roy, Jr. Residence Trust—2005. The plaintiffs argued that the trial justice committed three errors. First, the plaintiffs asserted that the trial justice misapplied the law of constructive trusts to the facts. Second, with respect to their promissory estoppel claim, the plaintiffs contended that the trial justice improperly found the alleged contract to be ambiguous and unenforceable. Third, the plaintiffs maintained that the trial justice erred in her analysis of the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and in limiting the plaintiffs' examination of the plaintiffs' expert appraiser regarding the appreciation in value of the property created by the addition. The Supreme Court held, first, that the trial justice did not err in finding in favor of the defendant on the constructive trust claim. Second, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err in finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a valid promissory estoppel claim. Third, and finally, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err in her analysis of the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and that the plaintiffs' argument regarding the examination of the expert appraiser was waived on appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.