Bresnick v. Baskin
650 A.2d 915 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's complaint must provide the defendant with fair and adequate notice of the legal claims being asserted. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to amend a complaint to add a new legal theory years after the initial filing if doing so would cause prejudice to the defendant.
Facts:
- Aron and Tsilya Baskin cut down trees and shrubs on a strip of land near the property line they shared with Samuel and Evelyn Bresniek.
- The Baskins then erected a chainlink fence on this strip of land.
- The Bresnieks believed the fence encroached approximately two feet onto their property.
- Years after the dispute began, both parties commissioned land surveys, which established that the disputed fence was, in fact, located entirely on the Baskins' property according to the property deeds.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 1988, Samuel and Evelyn Bresniek sued Aron and Tsilya Baskin in Superior Court (trial court), alleging trespass, destruction of trees, and wrongful erection of a fence.
- In July 1992, as the case was being prepared for trial, the Baskins challenged the Bresnieks' ability to proceed on an adverse possession theory, arguing the complaint did not provide notice of such a claim.
- The trial justice granted the Baskins' in-court motion to dismiss the case.
- Immediately following the dismissal, the Bresnieks made an oral motion in open court to amend their complaint to add an adverse possession claim.
- The trial justice denied the Bresnieks' motion to amend.
- The Bresnieks (appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal and its denial of their motion to amend to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (highest court), with the Baskins as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a plaintiff's motion to amend their complaint to add a claim of adverse possession nearly four years after the initial filing and on the eve of trial, when the original complaint only alleged trespass?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a plaintiff's motion to amend their complaint under these circumstances. A complaint must provide the opposing party with 'fair and adequate notice of the type of claim being asserted.' The Bresnieks' original complaint for trespass did not provide the Baskins with notice that they would need to defend against a claim of adverse possession, as it lacked the characteristic language of such a claim. While Rule 15 amendments are liberally granted, denying a motion made years after the initial filing on the eve of trial is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, as allowing the amendment would cause undue prejudice to the defendants by forcing them to defend an entirely new legal theory at the last minute.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the balance between liberal pleading rules under Rule 8 and the fundamental requirement of providing fair notice to defendants. It clarifies that while a plaintiff need not state a precise legal theory, the facts alleged must give the defendant a clear idea of the nature of the claim. The ruling also underscores the limits of Rule 15's liberal amendment policy, affirming that trial judges have broad discretion to deny amendments that are untimely and prejudicial. This protects defendants from being surprised by entirely new legal theories on the eve of trial after years of preparation based on the original complaint.
Unlock the full brief for Bresnick v. Baskin