Ilda Nersesyan v. Liberty Title and Escrow Company

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 2024-0049-Appeal.
• Status: Published

Opinion

indicated that she resided at 103 Providence Street, West Warwick, recorded as

Parcel 17-186, Book 2375-220, and that Stewart had issued her a title insurance

policy for the property located at that address. The plaintiff alleged that defendants

“failed to ascertain if the title was good and marketable, and whether any

encumbrances existed on the title.” The plaintiff then asserted that she discovered

several issues with the property, including: (1) deficient smoke detectors; (2)

“[w]ater pipe line [sic] damage”; (3) “[s]ewer problems”; (4) a neighbor constructing

a fence that blocked an easement; (5) plaintiff falling and injuring herself on the

property; (6) the conveyance of title by quitclaim deed rather than warranty deed;

(7) defendants’ failure to quiet title for plaintiff; and (8) defendants’ breach of

contract and violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

All three parties in this action filed motions for summary judgment and

submitted corresponding memoranda. A justice of the Superior Court issued a bench

decision on the motions on December 11, 2023, granting summary judgment in favor

of both defendants and denying summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. In his

decision, regarding plaintiff’s claims against Stewart, the hearing justice found that

plaintiff had “made no claims for issues with the title” and that almost all of her

claims were “issues with the condition of the property.” Regarding plaintiff’s claims

against GDM, the hearing justice determined that “GDM’s role was to conduct a title

search of the property” and that it “did not find any encumbrances on the property.”

-2- Additionally, the hearing justice recalled that plaintiff and GDM entered into a valid

hold-harmless agreement that “indemnified GDM against any damages which may

be asserted, claimed or recovered against it arising from matters outside the scope

of * * * GDM’s involvement with the property transaction.” The hearing justice

ultimately determined that

“[t]he named defendants are not the proper party for plaintiff to bring her claims of condition issues with the property because neither defendant owned the subject property. * * * Therefore, any claims against Stewart and GDM for property condition issues and breach of contract arising from the purchase and sales agreement are not legally cognizable claims.”

On December 21, 2023, orders entered granting summary judgment in favor of each

defendant and denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment to that

effect was also entered in favor of each defendant. This appeal follows.

On appeal, plaintiff fails to articulate any claims of error by the hearing

justice, nor does she articulate with any specificity why the judgment should be

vacated. Indeed, plaintiff submitted a statement and supplemental statement to this

Court, pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate

Procedure. In her papers, plaintiff lists general claims and points to allegedly

“erroneous claims” made by defendants, as contained in the transcript of the hearing

on the three motions for summary judgment. This recitation of excerpts from the

hearing transcript, along with a general conclusory statement of defendants’ alleged

-3- fault, comprise the entire statement; it is devoid of legal analysis or argument. The

plaintiff’s supplemental statement that was later filed with this Court also offers no

legal analysis or argument and provides no aid in divining the reasoning behind

plaintiff’s assertion that the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment in favor

of defendants and denying summary judgment in favor of herself.

This Court has stated that, when an appellant “does not * * * offer any legal

analysis or substantive discussion of the issues,” it will consider “an issue waived

when a party simply states an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful

discussion thereof.” Boulais v. DiPaola, 305 A.3d 1270, 1271 (R.I. 2024) (mem.)

(quoting Palange v. Palange, 243 A.3d 783, 785 (R.I. 2021) (mem.)). Furthermore,

this Court “will not search the record to substantiate that which a party alleges.” Id.

(quoting Palange, 243 A.3d at 785).

With regard to each of her claims, the plaintiff has offered no legal analysis

or argument. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not provided this Court with any reason

why the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

This, along with the trial justice’s well-reasoned and thorough bench decision, leads

us to affirm the judgments of the Superior Court. The record shall be returned to the

Superior Court.

-4- Entered as an Order of this Court this 19th day of December, 2024.

By Order,

/s/ Meredith A. Benoit, Clerk ____________________________ Clerk

-5- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Ilda Nersesyan v. Liberty Title and Escrow Company Title of Case et al. No. 2024-49-Appeal. Case Number (KC 21-1049)

Date Order Filed December 19, 2024

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Kent County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Kevin F. McHugh

For Plaintiff:

Ilda Nersesyan, pro se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:

Brian Kiser, Esq. Patricia A. Buckley, Esq.

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)