Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-18-2024
Case Style:
Franecesco Scotti v. Matthew Mimiaga
Case Number: PC-21-4667
Judge: Brian Stern
Court: Superior Court, Providence County, Rhode Island
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Providence, Rhode Island breach of contract lawyers represented Plaintiff and Defendant.
This action involved a contract to sell real property located at 300 Benefit Street in Providence, Rhode Island (the property). We have primarily derived the facts of this case from the complaint filed by Mr. Scotti seeking specific performance of an option agreement between him as optionee and Mr. Mimiaga as optionor, which agreement was part of a somewhat complicated real estate transaction that was initially consummated in 2015 and then underwent some adjustments in the ensuing years. Additional facts have been derived from (1) the exhibits attached to Mr. Mimiaga's memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment (including inter alia Mr. Mimiaga's deposition) and (2) the affidavit of Mr. Scotti and the exhibits attached thereto, which were filed in the Superior Court on October 11, 2022. We relate below the salient facts set forth in those several documents.
It is undisputed (1) that, at the time when the parties first began negotiations for the sale of the property, Mr. Scotti was the owner of the property; and (2) that in August of 2015 he sold the property to Mr. Mimiaga. In addition, Mr. Scotti has averred that he "financed the purchase" of the property and that Mr. Mimiaga executed a promissory note to him in the amount of $870,000 on August 13, 2015,
on which date the property was conveyed to Mr. Mimiaga. Pursuant to the terms of the promissory note, Mr. Mimiaga agreed to make Mr. Scotti monthly, interest-only payments of $3,625 from September 1, 2015 until August 1, 2020, on which date the balance of the principal would be due.
Mr. Scotti alleged in his complaint that, as "part of the same transaction," Mr. Mimiaga granted him an option to repurchase the property in five years for $900,000 (the option agreement)-said option to be exercised before July 1, 2020. It was further Mr. Scotti's allegation that he notified Mr. Mimiaga in writing-by mailing a handwritten letter to him on June 1, 2020-that he was exercising his option to repurchase the property. Mr. Scotti further asserted that, due to issues largely relating to COVID-19, Mr. Mimiaga several times requested an extension of the length of time during which he could occupy the property.
During his deposition, Mr. Mimiaga testified that he was personally and actively involved in negotiations with Mr. Scotti for the purchase of the property, which negotiations took place at various times between May and August of 2015. In that deposition, Mr. Mimiaga testified that the transaction was initially structured as a purchase with Mr. Scotti providing the financing; he also stated that Mr. Scotti "asked to add an option." Mr. Mimiaga conceded in his deposition testimony that Mr. Scotti's request for an option was made "months before" the actual closing on the property. He added that he was unsure whether a purchase and sales agreement
was signed before the closing, but he indicated that he had never seen a signed copy of such an agreement. It was further Mr. Mimiaga's testimony that the parties agreed on $900,000 as the purchase price for the property.[1]...
Scotti v. Mimiaga, 2023-91-Appeal. (R.I. Oct 18, 2024)
Outcome: The Superior Court order was vacated.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: