Supreme Court

No. 2017-103-Appeal.

(KC 07-1411)

Sona Stevens et al. :

v. :

Carel Bainum. :

O R D E R

This case involves the Sisyphean efforts of the defendant, Carel Bainum, to avoid the 

imposition of prejudgment interest. In a tortuous civil action filed over a decade ago, the 

plaintiff, Sona Stevens, sought monetary damages arising from Bainum’s failure to pay a loan 

from Stevens’s elderly father, Vartan Baligian.1

 In the complaint, Stevens also sought to enjoin 

Bainum from involvement in any further financial transactions with Baligian, who was then 

ninety-seven years old. Stevens first obtained the injunctive relief she requested; she then 

obtained a default judgment for the amount that Bainum admitted to owing Baligian on the loan. 

It was not until the Superior Court added the statutorily mandated prejudgment interest to that 

amount that Bainum embarked on her present endeavor.

This case came before the Supreme Court on February 14, 2018, pursuant to an order 

directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not 

1 Baligian, who passed away during the course of this hoary case, was also named as a plaintiff 

in the complaint.

- 1 -

 
summarily be decided.2

 After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and after 

reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be 

decided without further briefing or argument. Unfortunately for Bainum, she cannot reach the 

top of the hill because she has failed to present any articulable legal argument to this Court. We 

thus affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

After one of multiple mid-litigation trips to this Court—all initiated by Bainum, who 

appears pro se—we remarked that “[t]he facts in this case present a troubling scenario of money, 

deceit, and financial abuse of an elderly person.” Baligian v. Bainum, 983 A.2d 271, 271 (R.I. 

2009) (mem.).3

 We briefly summarize those facts that are pertinent to this appeal.

“This case began in 2002, when Vartan loaned defendant $120,000, at 8 percent interest, 

unsecured and with no payments due until 2007.” Baligian, 983 A.2d at 271. According to the

complaint, which was filed in 2007, Bainum did not timely repay that loan when it came due,

despite repeated demands by Baligian and Stevens for payment. Rather, at a time when Stevens 

was traveling out of state, and despite her having directed Bainum to have no financial 

discussions with her father while she was away, Bainum then “visited Vartan, purportedly for an 

outing for ice cream, but drove to her attorney’s office, where they executed a document entitled 

‘Loan Modification Agreement.’” Id. This was notwithstanding Bainum’s knowledge that 

Stevens, Vartan’s primary caregiver, was unhappy with the outstanding debt and wanted to 

2 On January 25, 2018, Bainum filed an eleventh-hour motion to withdraw her appeal in this 

Court. It is clear from her motion and statements at oral argument, however, that she did not do 

so with the understanding that such a withdrawal would give the final judgment entered in the 

Superior Court full force and effect. Rather, Bainum simply desired that the case be returned to 

the Superior Court so that she could file a motion to dismiss the action based on a statement 

made by Stevens when she was deposed in 2015. Therefore, we will not consider Bainum’s

motion to withdraw her appeal.

3 In another recent, unrelated case, we described Bainum as “no stranger to the elderly, or the 

courts for that matter * * *.” Bainum v. Coventry Police Department, 156 A.3d 418, 418 (R.I. 

2017).

- 2 -

 
collect it, working with her father to do so. Id. at 271 n.4. In fact, Stevens was not notified that 

Bainum would even be seeing Vartan, let alone that she would ask him to refinance the loan. Id. 

By the terms of the ensuing modification agreement, any debt repayment would be delayed until 

2018—with no interest accruing. Id. at 271. “[H]ad he lived to finally collect this long overdue 

debt, Vartan would have been 107 years old.” Id.

As a result of the nonpayment of the 2002 debt and the execution of the 2007 loan 

modification agreement, Baligian and Stevens initiated the instant action against Bainum, 

seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages for fraud, breach of 

contract, and conversion. In 2008, a justice of the Superior Court granted an injunction barring

Bainum from contacting Vartan and “enjoining defendant from spending or transferring any 

assets beyond her normal and usual personal living expenses.” Baligian, 983 A.2d at 272. On 

review, this Court affirmed, stating:

“It was the trial justice’s finding of undue influence by 

defendant that led to the grant of preliminary injunctive relief. The 

trial justice found that defendant not only crafted new documents 

and hoodwinked Vartan into signing them, but that it was her 

intention ‘to encumber all of her properties in the hope [of 

creating] highly speculative businesses,’ such that ‘the Court must 

step in to preserve the status quo.’ We decline to disturb this 

finding.” Id.

Thus we returned the case to the Superior Court for trial. Id. at 273.

However, this procedural morass continued for years. In January 2012, plaintiff filed a 

motion for sanctions against defendant alleging her failure to comply with discovery because she 

had repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled depositions. As a sanction, plaintiff asked the 

Superior Court to strike and dismiss defendant’s answer and counterclaim. A Superior Court 

justice ordered Bainum to appear at the next scheduled deposition; if she did not, the sanctions 

- 3 -
requested by plaintiff would be imposed. Bainum did not appear, and another justice of the 

Superior Court imposed the sanctions in accordance with the prior order.

Because defendant’s answer was stricken, plaintiff then sought to enter default against 

her. In a March 10, 2014 order, yet another justice of the Superior Court granted plaintiff’s 

motion to enter default on plaintiff’s claims of fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and 

declaratory relief. The defendant filed a notice of appeal from that order. This Court dismissed 

defendant’s appeal as interlocutory on January 12, 2015. See Stevens v. Bainum, 105 A.3d 98, 

98 (R.I. 2015) (mem.).4

On June 3, 2016, a hearing was held before a Superior Court justice on plaintiff’s motion 

to enter default judgment. At that hearing, defendant conceded that she owed plaintiff $96,869 

on the outstanding loan. She objected, however, to the addition of prejudgment interest to the 

principal amount. The defendant argued that plaintiff’s counsel was responsible for delaying the 

case and that the loan was interest-free. The defendant also asserted that the hearing justice had 

discretion whether to award prejudgment interest. On the contrary, plaintiff argued that the 

imposition of prejudgment interest is mandatory. The plaintiff indicated that prejudgment 

interest should run from May 9, 2009—the date of the last payment made by defendant on the 

loan. The hearing justice ruled that default judgment would enter on the principal amount, and 

that statutory 12 percent prejudgment interest would begin to accrue from May 2009. On June 

15, 2016, final judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $179,207.65 ($96,869 

in damages, $82,338.65 in prejudgment interest), plus costs of $358.

In her prebriefing statement to this Court, the defendant bases her appeal first on thirteen 

“issues” framed as rhetorical questions, then later on six “issues” that really constitute factual 

4 As plaintiff points out, Bainum filed additional interlocutory appeals in this case as well.

- 4 -

 
assertions. She proceeds to simply recite facts without any legal support; there is not a single 

case or rule of law cited in support of her claims.5

 There are only two identifiable arguments 

that the defendant makes: (1) the hearing justice should have exercised his discretion and not 

added prejudgment interest to the principal amount; and (2) because she made payments on the 

loan until May 2009, there was no breach of contract when the complaint was filed in 2007.

Beyond that, we can discern no cognizable legal argument. Yet “[s]imply stating an issue for 

appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not 

assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of 

that issue.” McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 131 A.3d 175, 176 (R.I. 2016) 

(mem.) (quoting Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Commission, 788 A.2d 1129, 1131 n.1 

(R.I. 2002)). Consequently, the defendant’s arguments are waived.6

The defendant’s appeal is denied, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The 

papers in this case shall be remanded to the Superior Court.

Entered as an Order of this Court this 14th day of March, 2018. 

By Order,

 

_____________/s/_____________

 Clerk 

5 We recognize that Bainum is a self-represented litigant. See Faerber v. Cavanagh, 568 A.2d 

326, 330 (R.I. 1990) (“Even if a litigant is acting pro se, he or she is expected to familiarize 

himself or herself with the law as well as the rules of procedure.”).

6 Even if defendant had tried to provide support for her two apparent arguments, they are wholly 

without merit. Regarding her prejudgment interest argument, see Danforth v. More, 129 A.3d 

63, 71 (R.I. 2016) (“This Court has consistently recognized that imposition of prejudgment 

interest pursuant to Rhode Island’s prejudgment interest statute [G.L. 1956 § 9-21-10(a)] ‘is a 

ministerial act which does not allow for any discretion by the judge or the jury.’” (quoting King 

v. Huntress, Inc., 94 A.3d 467, 499-500 (R.I. 2014))); regarding her date-of-breach argument, see

DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Co., 26 A.3d 585, 628 (R.I. 2011) (“[W]e do not consider 

issues on appeal which were not raised and properly presented during proceedings in the court 

below.”).

- 5 -

 
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Sona Stevens et al. v. Carel Bainum.

Case Number No. 2017-103-Appeal.

(KC 07-1411)

Date Order Filed March 14, 2018

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and 

Indeglia, JJ.

Source of Appeal Kent County Superior Court

Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Allen P. Rubine

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Plaintiff: 

David J. Strachman, Esq.

For Defendant: 

Carel Bainum, Pro Se

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2016)