- 1 -

Supreme Court

No. 2019-469-Appeal.

(WC 10-437)

Mal A. Salvadore :

v. :

DavidC. LaRoche et al. :

O R D E R

The plaintiff, Mal Salvadore, appeals from a Superior Court judgment 

dismissing his claims against the defendants, David C. LaRoche; Brian LaRoche;

Stephen LaRoche; Randi LaRoche; Wildflower Corporation; Wildflower Stony 

Fort, LLC; David C. LaRoche d/b/a Wildflower Corporation; David C. LaRoche 

d/b/a Wildflower Stony Fort, LLC; Brian LaRoche d/b/a Wildflower Corporation; 

Brian LaRoche d/b/a Wildflower Stony Fort, LLC; Stephen LaRoche d/b/a 

Wildflower Corporation; and Stephen LaRoche d/b/a Wildflower Stony Fort, LLC 

(collectively defendants).

1 Salvadore contends on appeal that the trial justice erred 

in failing to find a constructive trust. This case came before the Supreme Court 

pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues 

raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ 

1 When referring to members of the LaRoche family individually, we use their first 

names and at times first names and middle initials for clarity. No disrespect is 

intended.
- 2 -

written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has 

not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or 

argument. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the Superior 

Court. 

The trial testimony reveals that in 1991, plaintiff, a practicing attorney, met 

David F. LaRoche (David F.), who had been referred to plaintiff by another attorney 

for representation connected to an involuntary bankruptcy case. The plaintiff 

represented David F. for the entirety of that bankruptcy action and, later, another 

bankruptcy action. The plaintiff received some compensation for this 

representation; however, he did not receive all that he had billed. As a result, David 

F. owed plaintiff approximately $160,000 for his representation. No payments were 

ever made as to that amount. 

In the summer of 2001, plaintiff and David F. entered into an agreement, 

memorialized in a promissory note, wherein the sum due to plaintiff was reduced to 

$140,000, and terms were established for that sum to be paid. The promissory note 

was due on October 10, 2006. According to plaintiff, he never received any 

payments from David F. on this note. 

At some point, David F. informed plaintiff that he was gravely ill. Upon 

receiving this information, plaintiff determined that he would not take action against 

David F. while he was dealing with his illness. David F. died on February 26, 2009. 
- 3 -

After David F.’s death, plaintiff sent a letter to David F.’s son, David C., 

asking if they could resolve the issue regarding the sum of money due to plaintiff. 

The plaintiff also sent a letter to David F.’sformer wife, Randi, regarding the same 

issue. In response, David C. indicated that there was no source of payment for 

plaintiff. 

On June 22, 2010, plaintiff filed the instant action against defendants, 

claiming unjust enrichment and fraud. The amended complaint filed on July 23, 

2010, alleged five counts—three alleging unjust enrichment and two alleging fraud 

and/or fraudulent transfer. The matter was eventually tried before a justice of the 

Superior Court, sitting without a jury, on September 16 and 17, 2014. 

On July 11, 2019, the trial justice issued a written decision.2 The trial justice 

found that plaintiff had presented evidence regarding David F.’s indebtedness to 

plaintiff and evidence regarding the funding and operations of the three corporate 

defendants, in an effort to trace David F.’s money to defendants. She also found 

that, at various points in time, Randi and David F.’s children, David C., Brian, and 

Stephen, were officers and/or shareholders in these three corporations. 

2 The record contains no explanation for the seemingly unreasonable nearly five-year 

delay between the filing of posttrial memoranda and the issuance of the trial justice’s 

decision. We remind all judicial officers of their obligation to dispose of court 

business promptly and diligently.
- 4 -

However, the trial justice found that, as to the unjust-enrichment claims, 

“[n]one of the individual or corporate defendants were provided any benefit from 

[p]laintiff[.]” She went on to find that, “[s]imply put, there is no evidence that any 

corporate or individual [d]efendant was unjustly enriched as a result of the legal 

services provided to David F. for which he remained indebted to [p]laintiff.” The 

trial justice also found that the claims for fraudulent transfer were without merit, 

deciding that they were both time-barred and that, even if they were not, there was 

no fraudulent transfer. 

Accordingly, she found that plaintiff had failed to prove any of the five counts 

in his amended complaint. The plaintiff does not challenge any of these rulings on 

appeal. Judgment was entered on July 24, 2019, and plaintiff timely filed a notice 

of appeal. 

The only issue raised by plaintiff on appeal is the failure of the trial justice to 

impose a constructive trust upon the assets of any defendant. “This Court previously 

has held that the underlying principle of a constructive trust is the equitable 

prevention of unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another in situations 

in which legal title to property was obtained by fraud or in violation of a fiduciary 

or confidential relationship.” Sousa v. Roy, 243 A.3d 775, 780 (R.I. 2021) (quoting 

Connor v. Schlemmer, 996 A.2d 98, 109 (R.I. 2010)). “[A] constructive trust is a 

relationship imposed by operation of law as a remedy to redress a wrong or prevent 
- 5 -

an unjust enrichment.” Simpson v. Dailey, 496 A.2d 126, 128 (R.I. 1985) (emphasis 

added). 

The plaintiff argues that the beneficiary of the purportedconstructive trust is 

David F. and that the defendants were the trustees; he contends that the trial justice 

instead misidentified the parties of the constructive trust with the plaintiff as the 

beneficiary and the defendants as the trustees. However, the plaintiff does not 

contend that the trial justice erred in finding that he had failed to satisfy the elements 

of each cause of action asserted; rather, he solely focuses his appeal on the 

constructive-trust issue and the existenceof, or lack of, a fiduciary relationship. The 

plaintiff’s argument is misplaced; a constructive trust can only be imposed as a 

remedy. See Simpson, 496 A.2d at 128. As no claims survived under the trial 

justice’s decision—and, on appeal, the plaintiff did not contest the trial justice’s 

decisions as to those claims—there is no surviving claim for which a 

constructive-trust remedy might be imposed.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The record shall 

be returned to the Superior Court. 

Entered as an Order of this Court this day of June, 2021.

By Order,

____________________________ 

Clerk

9th

/s/
SU-CMS-02B (revised June 2020)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

Licht Judicial Complex

250 Benefit Street

Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Mal A. Salvadore v. David C. LaRoche et al.

Case Number No. 2019-469-Appeal.

(WC 10-437)

Date Order Filed June 9, 2021

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and 

Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court 

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Kristin E. Rodgers

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Plaintiff:

David P. DeStefano, Esq.

For Defendants:

Gerard M DeCelles, Esq.