Cahalan v. Weetamoe Associates

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Cahalan v. Weetamoe Associates

668 A.2d 1268, 1996 R.I. LEXIS 9, 1996 WL 21323

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 5, 1996

DocketNo. 94-738-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 668 A.2d 1268 (Cahalan v. Weetamoe Associates) 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

Cahalan v. Weetamoe Associates, 668 A.2d 1268, 1996 R.I. LEXIS 9, 1996 WL 21323 (R.I. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before a hearing panel of this court December 19,1995, pursuant to an order that had directed the plaintiffs to appear in order to show cause why their appeal should not be denied and dismissed. After hearing the oral arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The plaintiffs had purchased certain real estate at a tax sale from the town of Bristol. They claim from the successor mortgagee, NLI/East Coast Land Partnership, L.P. (NLI) which redeemed the property certain rents that had been collected from tenants who occupied the property during the time that the plaintiffs were the owners pursuant to the tax sale. It is undisputed that NLI did not collect any of these rents. The rents were collected by the former owners of the fee, Weetamoe Associates. Consequently, the trial justice held that the successor mortgagee which had paid all sums necessary for redemption was not liable for the rents which it had never collected. Therefore, the trial justice held that Ashness v. Burr’s Lane Associates, 640 A.2d 522 (R.I.1994) was not applicable, nor was Driscoll v. Karroo Land Co., 600 A.2d 722 (R.I.1991). We agree.

Consequently, the plaintiffs’ appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

MURRAY, J., did not participate.

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

ORDER

This case came before a hearing panel of this court December 19,1995, pursuant to an order that had directed the plaintiffs to appear in order to show cause why their appeal should not be denied and dismissed. After hearing the oral arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The plaintiffs had purchased certain real estate at a tax sale from the town of Bristol. They claim from the successor mortgagee, NLI/East Coast Land Partnership, L.P. (NLI) which redeemed the property certain rents that had been collected from tenants who occupied the property during the time that the plaintiffs were the owners pursuant to the tax sale. It is undisputed that NLI did not collect any of these rents. The rents were collected by the former owners of the fee, Weetamoe Associates. Consequently, the trial justice held that the successor mortgagee which had paid all sums necessary for redemption was not liable for the rents which it had never collected. Therefore, the trial justice held that Ashness v. Burr’s Lane Associates, 640 A.2d 522 (R.I.1994) was not applicable, nor was Driscoll v. Karroo Land Co., 600 A.2d 722 (R.I.1991). We agree.

Consequently, the plaintiffs’ appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

MURRAY, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 A.2d 1268, 1996 R.I. LEXIS 9, 1996 WL 21323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cahalan-v-weetamoe-associates-ri-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack