Kingstown Mobile Home Park v. Strashnick, 774 A.2d 847 (2001)

Citation: Kingstown Mobile Home Park v. Strashnick, 774 A.2d 847 (2001)
Parent Document: Kingstown Mobile Home Park v. Strashnick, 774 A.2d 847 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 2001-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1515698/kingstown-mobile-home-park-v-st... ↗

Full Text

1,721 chars

In her decision, the Superior Court justice found that within six months of proceedings in District Court — in which Strashnick successfully fought an eviction and was permitted to cure park rule violations — Krzak attempted to evict Strashnick yet again. Without making a finding on whether Strashnick had the benefit of the presumption under the act, the Superi- or Court justice found that “the facts and reasonable inference from those facts are so clear, that [Strashnick] has sustained * * * his burden of proof on the question of reprisal.” Krzak contended on appeal that the Superior Court justice failed to state any facts underlying her conclusion that Krzak intended to evict Strashnick as a penalty for his defense of a prior eviction action. As we have explained, a trial justice’s findings on mixed questions of law and fact are generally entitled to the same deference as the justice’s findings of fact. Hawkins v. Town of Foster, 708 A.2d 178, 182 (R.I.1998). In her decision, the Superior Court justice concluded that Krzak “commenced an action for possession, and it is clear that possession is exactly what she wanted to accomplish.” Moreover, the justice commented in detail on Krzak’s attempts to “evict [Strashnick] for a lengthy period of time” and noted that Strashnick “has apparently been a thorn in the side of [Krzak] for several years.” In light of the Superior Court justice’s finding that Krzak’s objective in this litigation was to rid herself of Strashnick, and absent any finding that the eviction proceedings initiated by Krzak were primarily “intended as a penalty,” the judgment for Strash-nick on the claim of reprisal was error. Consequently, we vacate the award of $780. Conclusion

Other Sections in This Document (146)

Full Text