Opinion ID: 1537845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: DaRosa

Text: The plaintiff's sole allegation is that DaRosa unduly influenced Louis to refuse to transfer stock to plaintiff during Louis's lifetime. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the motion justice failed to appreciate the materiality of the disputed evidence with respect to undue influence. At the outset, we note that plaintiff has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the motion justice's bench decision, but, because this Court's review is de novo, the omission is not fatal to plaintiff's appeal. We pause, however, to remind litigants that failure to order a transcript is risky business. Sentas v. Sentas, 911 A.2d 266, 270 (R.I.2006). Without a transcript of the bench decision in this case we are unable to conclude whether the motion justice granted summary judgment because he found that there were no genuine issues of material fact or whether he concluded that plaintiff simply could not establish a prima facie case for undue influence. To the extent that the motion justice based his decision upon finding there were no genuine issues of material fact, we affirm summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the motion justice. See Ahlburn v. Clark, 728 A.2d 449, 452 (R.I.1999) (this Court may affirm a judgment on grounds not actually relied upon by the trial court to justify its ruling). Without passing on whether there were genuine issues of material fact, we hold that summary judgment was proper because plaintiff cannot sustain his claim because undue influence is not a cause of action at law entitling him to damages. Undue influence long has been recognized in equity as a defense to or a means of challenging the validity of a will, deed, or contract. See Tinney v. Tinney, 770 A.2d 420, 435 (R.I.2001) (action to rescind a deed on grounds of undue influence); Caranci v. Howard, 708 A.2d 1321, 1322 (R.I.1998) (action to set aside a will on grounds of undue influence); Stockett v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 82 R.I. 172, 174, 175, 106 A.2d 741, 742, 743 (1954) (action to rescind a contract on grounds of undue influence). In such cases, equity provides an action for restitution or rescission to cure the dominant party's wrongful substitution of [his or her will] for the free will and choice [of the subservient party]. Filippi v. Filippi, 818 A.2d 608, 630 (R.I.2003) (quoting Tinney, 770 A.2d at 437-38); see also 2 Dan B. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies, § 10.3 at 657 (2d ed.1993) (noting that [t]he victim of undue influence is entitled to the same battery of restitutionary remedies as the victim of fraud or other wrongdoing). Although undue influence is well recognized in equity, it is equally established that there is no tort of undue influence, and there is no right to damages, as distinct from restitution, because of such influence. 2 Dobbs, § 10.3 at 658; see also Cyr v. Cote, 396 A.2d 1013, 1019 n. 7 (Me.1979) ([U]ndue influence and duress, traditionally considered wrongful under well-established precedent    are simply the means by which the alleged interference occurred.); Restatement (Second) Contracts ch. 7, topic 2, introductory note at 474 (1993) (Since duress and undue influence, unlike deceit, are not generally of themselves actionable torts, the victim of duress or undue influence is usually limited to avoidance and does not have an affirmative action for damages.). In this case, even if the facts plaintiff has alleged are true, summary judgment must be entered against him because he cannot establish an essential component of his case, namely that he is entitled to damages at law. The plaintiff has attempted to utilize a tool recognized only in equity as the sole basis for his tort action against DaRosa. Unfortunately for plaintiff, the law is clear: undue influence is not an independent tort, and, thus, compensatory damages are not available. 2 Dobbs, § 10.3 at 658. Although the facts, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, conceivably could lead a finder of fact to find that DaRosa's acts were wrongful, her undue influence cannot, by itself, be deemed tortious. See id., § 10.1 at 632. The difficulty for plaintiff is that an action in equity in this case would be unavailing. Had plaintiff alleged that DaRosa unduly influenced Louis to affirmatively execute a will, a deed, or a contract, an action in equity would be available to set aside the transaction. However, his sole allegation is that DaRosa unduly influenced his father not to do what he otherwise intended to do, and, therefore, there is no operative transaction here for equity to set aside. Nevertheless, we are not prepared to recognize undue influence as an independent tort based only upon the facts of this case. Because undue influence is not a tort and is only remediable by an action in equity, the plaintiff cannot prevail as a matter of law.