Bogosian v. Vaccaro

422 A.2d 1253, 1980 R.I. LEXIS 1873
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided November 25, 1980·No. 78-243-Appeal·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

This is a Superior Court civil action in which the plaintiffs, Richard K. and Paul Bogosian (the Bogosians), are seeking a real estate brokerage commission of $9,000. The defendants, Michael and Virginia Vac-caro (the Vaccaros), are husband and wife. The agreement involved the sale of business property situated in the town of East Greenwich and known as the Railroad Inn. The Vaccaros concede that the Bogosians presented the requisite ready, willing, and able buyer but contend that the brokerage agreement they signed is a nullity because at the time of its execution Michael Vaccaro was civilly dead. A justice of the Superior Court, after considering the evidence presented before him, rejected this defense and found for the Bogosians. In affirming the trial justice’s decision, we would paraphrase Mark Twain’s words and note that the report of Michael’s death is “somewhat exaggerated.”

To place the Vaccaros’ defense in its proper perspective, we would first point out that this is not the first time Michael has been before us. Earlier, on January 19, 1973,. we rejected Michael’s appeal following his conviction by a Superior Court jury on February 9, 1971, of the June 26, 1970 murder of a Judith Dionne. Subsequently, *1254 on February 23, 1971, Michael received a life sentence. See State v. Vaccaro, 111 R.I. 59, 298 A.2d 788 (1973). When the Vaccaros and the Bogosians in the summer of 1971 entered into the brokerage agreement, the life sentence had been imposed, and Michael was an inmate at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) awaiting our consideration of his appeal.

The Vaccaro defense is based upon two provisions of G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) chapter 6 of title 13. Section 13-6-1 in essence provides that any person imprisoned in the ACI for life shall, “at the time of such conviction,” be deemed to be dead “in all respects” with regard to “all rights of property, to the bond of matrimony and to all civil rights and relations, of any nature whatsoever * * *Another proviso of § 13-6-1 specifies that the matrimonial bond shall not be dissolved nor will the property rights of the convict’s spouse be impaired or terminated except by way of a properly obtained divorce decree. The second statute relied on by the Vaccaros is § 13-6-3. This enactment stipulates that no person who is sentenced to imprisonment at the ACI shall have the power, during the term of imprisonment, to make a will or convey his property unless permission is obtained from the Superior Court.

The trial justice, in rejecting this “civilly dead” defense, ruled that § 13-6-1 was intended to be a limitation on the assertion of any rights by a prisoner serving a life sentence rather than a shield that would insulate him or her from civil liability. Although we agree with the trial justice’s conclusion on this facet of the appeal, our rationale differs somewhat from his.

Section 13-6-1 specifies that the mantle of civil death falls upon a person sentenced to life imprisonment “at the time of such conviction.” However, in actuality, a determination that a person has been imprisoned for life cannot be made until a final judgment of conviction has been entered. Thus, we hold that the civil-death proviso found in § 13-6-1 cannot be triggered until such time as there has been a final judgment of conviction. In State v. Macarelli, 118 R.I. 693, 375 A.2d 944 (1977), we pointed out that a judgment of conviction is not final so long as the case is pending on appeal. It is clear from the chronology set forth earlier in this opinion regarding the time of the murder trial and the imposition of sentence that the brokerage agreement was executed approximately a year and a half before Michael’s conviction became final. Consequently, the Vac-caros gain no benefit from the provisions of § 13-6-1.

The Vaccaros fare no better with the provisions of § 13-6-3 than they did with § 13-6-1. Comparing the language of § 13-6-1 with the terms of § 13-6-3, we find that each clearly serves a separate statutory purpose. If the individual is given a life sentence, such a recipient is civilly dead and by the dictates of § 13-6-1 incapable of conveying anything. Obviously, the permissive portions of § 13-6-3 refer to a prisoner who receives something less than a life sentence. Such an individual cannot be equated with the civilly dead referred to in § 13-6-1. Even if § 13-6-3 1 were applica *1255 ble, the Bogosians could still receive their commission because it was earned at the moment they produced the ready, willing, and able buyer. No conveyance was required. Judd Realty, Inc. v. Tedesco, R.I., 400 A.2d 952 (1979).

The defendants’ appeal is denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bogosian v. Vaccaro, 422 A.2d 1253, 1980 R.I. LEXIS 1873 (R.I. 1980).

422 A.2d 1253 (Bogosian v. Vaccaro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lombardi v. Raimondo
D. Rhode Island, 2021
Dana Gallop v. Adult Correctional Institutions
182 A.3d 1137 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2018)
State Ex Rel. Webb v. Cianci
591 A.2d 1193 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1991)