Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Ass'n

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Ass'n

86 A.3d 392, 2014 WL 931236, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 28

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 11, 2014

DocketNo. 2011-108-APPEAL

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.3d 392 (Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Ass'n, 86 A.3d 392, 2014 WL 931236, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 28 (R.I. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

In the second of two appeals that arose out of this declaratory-judgment action, the individual owners of ten condominium units appeal from a Superior Court order denying their post-trial motion to intervene.¹ The action in which the proposed intervenors sought to participate originated from a complaint filed by the plaintiffs against the Moorland Farm Condominium Association (association). Final judgment entered in the plaintiffs’ favor on their declaratory-judgment claim on October 1, 2010. Thereafter, on October 7, 2010, the proposed intervenors moved pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene in the litigation. In a bench decision rendered on November 19, 2010, a Superior Court trial justice denied the motion to intervene. An order to that effect entered on January 20, 2011.²

On appeal, the proposed intervenors request that this Court vacate the underlying judgment and dismiss the case. In effect, however, we have already granted the relief that the proposed intervenors are requesting. In the first of these two appeals, Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Association, No.2011-107-A., 86 A.3d 854, 2014 WL 904204 (R.I., filed Mar. 10, 2014), we granted the association’s appeal from the judgment. In that decision, we concluded that the proposed interve-nors were indispensable parties in plaintiffs’ declaratory-judgment action. We held that plaintiffs’ failure to join the proposed intervenors as parties in the litigation rendered the judgment null and void. We therefore ordered that the judgment be vacated and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In light of our decision in the association’s appeal, a resolution of the merits of the proposed intervenors’ appeal will not have any practical effect on the underlying controversy. Accordingly, this appeal is moot. See Boyer v. Bedrosian, 57 A.3d 259, 272 (R.I.2012) (“A case is moot if * * * the [C]ourt’s judgment would fail to have any practical effect on the controver[393]*393sy.”). For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is denied and dismissed.

Chief Justice SUTTELL did not participate.

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

ORDER

In the second of two appeals that arose out of this declaratory-judgment action, the individual owners of ten condominium units appeal from a Superior Court order denying their post-trial motion to intervene.¹ The action in which the proposed intervenors sought to participate originated from a complaint filed by the plaintiffs against the Moorland Farm Condominium Association (association). Final judgment entered in the plaintiffs’ favor on their declaratory-judgment claim on October 1, 2010. Thereafter, on October 7, 2010, the proposed intervenors moved pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene in the litigation. In a bench decision rendered on November 19, 2010, a Superior Court trial justice denied the motion to intervene. An order to that effect entered on January 20, 2011.²

On appeal, the proposed intervenors request that this Court vacate the underlying judgment and dismiss the case. In effect, however, we have already granted the relief that the proposed intervenors are requesting. In the first of these two appeals, Burns v. Moorland Farm Condominium Association, No.2011-107-A., 86 A.3d 854, 2014 WL 904204 (R.I., filed Mar. 10, 2014), we granted the association’s appeal from the judgment. In that decision, we concluded that the proposed interve-nors were indispensable parties in plaintiffs’ declaratory-judgment action. We held that plaintiffs’ failure to join the proposed intervenors as parties in the litigation rendered the judgment null and void. We therefore ordered that the judgment be vacated and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In light of our decision in the association’s appeal, a resolution of the merits of the proposed intervenors’ appeal will not have any practical effect on the underlying controversy. Accordingly, this appeal is moot. See Boyer v. Bedrosian, 57 A.3d 259, 272 (R.I.2012) (“A case is moot if * * * the [C]ourt’s judgment would fail to have any practical effect on the controver[393]*393sy.”). For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is denied and dismissed.

Chief Justice SUTTELL did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.3d 392, 2014 WL 931236, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-moorland-farm-condominium-assn-ri-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack