Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island v. Joan M. Barbuto, et al.

May 02, 2017

OUTCOME: AFFIRMED

This appeal involved a dispute over a two-mile stretch of beach in the Misquamicut area of Westerly, Rhode Island. The Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island brought an action against the beach ... front property owners to enjoin them from preventing public access to the beach area. The state asserted that, in 1909, five sets of property owners dedicated the beach area to the public through a Plat and Indenture that they signed and recorded. Following a bench trial, a Superior Court justice entered judgment for the landowner-defendants. The trial justice found that the 1909 Plat and Indenture, read together, did not reveal the Plattors’ manifest intent to dedicate the beach area to the public. The trial justice deemed the 1909 Plat and Indenture to be unambiguous instruments and, therefore, he did not need to consider extrinsic evidence in reaching his determination. Had he found the 1909 Plat and Indenture ambiguous, however, the trial justice nevertheless determined that the extrinsic evidence did not demonstrate the Plattors’ manifest intent to dedicate the beach area. The Attorney General appealed and asserted that the 1909 Plat and Indenture clearly demonstrated the Plattors’ intent to dedicate the beach area. Alternatively, the Attorney General maintained that, even if the 1909 Plat and Indenture were ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence revealed the manifest intent to dedicate. The Rhode Island Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the trial justice.