Skip to main content
· 5/9/2022

V. George Mitola v. Providence Public Buildings Authority

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, V. George Mitola and Carol A. Mitola, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court awarding them $492,000 plus interest in the amount of $6,309.20 for the development rights to their property, which rights were acquired by the defendant, Providence Public Buildings Authority. On appeal, the plaintiffs asserted that the trial justice erred in denying both their petition to compel purchase in fee and their motion to reconsider the court's decision and order denying their petition to compel purchase in fee. In appealing the trial justice's denial of the petition to compel purchase in fee and the motion to reconsider, the plaintiffs argued that the trial justice did not strictly construe G.L. 1956 § 45 50 13(a)(5) and therefore erroneously enforced a time limitation on the filing of the petition to compel purchase in fee. The plaintiffs also contended that the trial justice erred in finding that the doctrine of laches applied. Additionally, the plaintiffs ascribed reversible error to the trial justice's acceptance of the valuation of the property offered by the defendant's appraiser and thereby her rejection of the comparable sales method of valuation as calculated by the plaintiffs' appraiser. The Supreme Court concluded that, because the statute did not expressly impose a time limit for a property owner's request for the authority to purchase property in fee simple, the issue turned on whether the plaintiffs filed their petition in a reasonably timely manner. The Supreme Court determined that a lapse of less than four years was not an unreasonable amount of time, and that the plaintiffs' petition was therefore timely filed. Moreover, the Supreme Court determined that, because there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiffs that led to a delay, and because the delay did not cause any significant prejudice to the defendant, the doctrine of laches did not apply. Lastly, based on its holding, the Supreme Court concluded that it did not need to addr

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.