Martin Malinou, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Etta E. Malinou v. Seattle Savings Bank

Summary

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment in favor of Seattle Savings Bank in a dispute concerning foreclosure of a reverse mortgage. The court held that the plaintiff’s appeal from the original judgment was untimely and that the trial court properly denied his motions to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) and to take a posttrial deposition under Rule 27(b).

Holdings

1. The appeal from the April 5, 2006 judgment was untimely because Malinou did not file a notice of appeal within twenty days after entry of that valid appealable judgment.
2. The Superior Court properly denied Malinou's Rule 60(b)(2) motion because the asserted evidence was not shown to be material or undiscoverable through ordinary diligence, and the motion was unreasonably delayed.
3. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Malinou's motion to take a posttrial deposition because the proposed testimony was speculative and was not shown to be necessary to perpetuate testimony or avoid a failure or delay of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Malinou's appeal from the April 5, 2006 Superior Court judgment was timely.
2. Whether the Superior Court properly denied Malinou's Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate the judgment based on allegedly newly discovered evidence.
3. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Malinou's Rule 27(b) motion for a posttrial deposition to perpetuate testimony concerning the mortgage assignment.

Disposition

affirmed