Sophie F. Bronowiski Mulligan Irrevocable Trust v. Bridges, 44 A.3d 116 (2012)

Citation: Sophie F. Bronowiski Mulligan Irrevocable Trust v. Bridges, 44 A.3d 116 (2012)
Parent Document: Sophie F. Bronowiski Mulligan Irrevocable Trust v. Bridges, 44 A.3d 116 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 2012-04-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2303150/sophie-f-bronowiski-mulligan-ir... ↗

Full Text

1,057 chars

The plaintiff also called defendant as an adverse witness. The defendant conceded that he painted a portion of the third-floor bathroom, the stair tread, and the hallway adjacent to the stairwell without permission from plaintiff. After defendant testified, plaintiff rested. The defendant then testified on his own behalf in narrative form, stating that he accepted fault for painting certain areas, and that he did not pay his last month’s rent. After the close of the evidence, defendant apologized for painting parts of the house without permission and said that he was open to “any reasonable attempt at solving the problem.” Nonetheless, he argued that he should not be held responsible for the cost of re-wallpapering the entire stairwell. In response, plaintiff reiterated that re-wallpapering the stairwell was the primary issue in the dispute. In short, plaintiff acknowledged that it was an unusually expensive repair, but argued that a proper restoration required wallpapering the en *120 tire area and not merely the wrongfully painted hallway.

Other Sections in This Document (46)

Full Text