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

1,312 chars

After considering the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the trial justice delivered a bench decision. She found that the'lease was “clear and unambiguous” and that the lessee was “forbidden to paint without the express permission of the landlord.” Furthermore, she found that defendant admitted that he breached the lease when he painted over the wallpaper in the hallway and the bathroom without permission, and that the only genuine dispute was over damages. However, the trial justice concluded that plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that “the painting of the affected areas has so materially affected the aesthetics and overall presentation of the property” that defendant should be saddled with the cost of re-wallpapering the entire stairwell in addition to the hallway. She stated that she was “not persuaded that the plaintiff has been harmed to the extent of over $20,000” and that she “would have liked to have been able to award a different amount, perhaps a lesser amount, but the evidence is such that [she] would only be speculating if [she] were to arbitrarily pick a different dollar amount of compensation.” In the end, the trial justice awarded plaintiff $1,600 plus interest, representing one month of unpaid rent. II Standard of Review

Other Sections in This Document (46)

Full Text