Town of Barrington v. Williams

Summary

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed a Superior Court judgment resolving the disputed location and boundaries of Bogman Street, an undeveloped platted street in Barrington. The court held that the special master acted within the authority granted under Rule 53 and that the trial justice properly adopted the master's recommended replat. Because Bogman Street had not been accepted as a public highway, formal municipal abandonment procedures were not required.

Holdings

1. A party that fails to make a timely objection under Superior Court Rule 53(e)(2) to a special master's findings and recommendations may not later raise that objection on appeal.
2. The special master acted within the authority granted by the Superior Court's Rule 53 order when he investigated the disputed property, made findings and conclusions, and recommended alternative replats and revised street widths.
3. Because Bogman Street had never been accepted as a public way, adoption of the replat and reduction of its width did not require formal abandonment proceedings under G.L. 1956 chapter 6 of title 24.
4. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion, commit legal error, or clearly err by adopting the special master's findings and twenty-four-foot replat to resolve the conflicting surveys, encroachments, and disputed location of Bogman Street.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellants waived objections to the special master's findings and recommendations by failing to make timely and specific objections under Superior Court Rule 53(e)(2).
2. Whether the special master exceeded his authority by recommending alternative replats of Bogman Street and adjustments to surrounding property lines.
3. Whether the Superior Court justice lacked authority to adopt the master's replat because abandonment of portions of Bogman Street required legislative action by town authorities.
4. Whether the Superior Court's adoption of the master's proposed replat and declaration of Bogman Street's location was clearly erroneous or otherwise an abuse of discretion.

Disposition

affirmed