Opinion ID: 1548679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Damages for Breach of Agreement

Text: Finally, Nye argues that the trial justice erred when he awarded the Brousseaus damages based on his finding that Nye breached the parties' agreement that they would share the cost of the survey. He maintains that he was not on notice that this relief was within the realm of possibility by the language of the counterclaim and that as a result he did not argue his side of the story on this apparent non-issue. Although Nye did argue that there was no agreement about payment of the cost of the survey, maintaining that he was simply being generous in his offer to pay half the cost, and this statement was part of the evidence during the trial, we hold that the boilerplate language of the Brousseaus' counterclaim was not a sufficient basis for the trial justice's award in their favor for monetary damages. In count one of their counterclaim, the Brousseaus alleged that the survey completed for their property on November 15, 2005, delineate[d] the boundary lines of the parties' respective properties, and requested that they be granted such other and further relief as [the Superior Court] shall deem appropriate and the circumstances of the case may require. The trial justice determined that an award of damages in favor of the Brousseaus for half the cost of the survey was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case because Nye met with [the surveyor], subpoenaed [the surveyor] for trial, and had [the surveyor] wait for several days to testify. He further found that the survey was used as the basis for [the landscape arborist] to prepare his report. Essentially, Nye argues before this Court that the trial justice erroneously awarded these damages sua sponte. We agree; [o]ur caselaw consistently has mandated that when a trial justice considers and rules on an issue sua sponte, the parties must be afforded notice of the issue and allowed an opportunity to present evidence and argue against it. Catucci v. Pacheco, 866 A.2d 509, 515 (R.I.2005) (citing Vargas Manufacturing Co. v. Friedman, 661 A.2d 48, 55 (R.I.1995)) (holding that the trial justice erred when he sua sponte added additional defendants as parties at the close of plaintiff's case and defendants were not prepared to offer any witnesses or otherwise defend). In short, a party should not be granted relief that it did not request. Providence Journal Co. v. Convention Center Authority, 824 A.2d 1246, 1248 (R.I.2003) (holding that the trial justice erred when she ordered unrequested redactions of certain information from several contracts) (citing Direct Action for Rights and Equality v. Gannon, 713 A.2d 218, 225 (R.I.1998); Vargas Manufacturing Co., 661 A.2d at 55, and Santos v. Santos, 568 A.2d 1010, 1011 (R.I.1990)); see Vargas Manufacturing Co., 661 A.2d at 54-55 (holding that the trial justice erred when he awarded punitive damages for threats amounting to the crime of extortion although the defendants mentioned and requested only punitive damages for knowing, intentional, and willful misrepresentations). This Court has noted that [a]ppellate courts are especially hesitant to read a particular claim into a complaint's general boilerplate prayer for relief. Bandoni v. State, 715 A.2d 580, 596 (R.I.1998) (citing Thomas R.W. v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 130 F.3d 477, 480 (1st Cir.1997)). In Bandoni, this Court viewed consideration of an award of declaratory and injunctive relief as inappropriate because it was not sought in the complaint, despite the complaint's general language that prayed for monetary damages and `all such other relief deemed meet and just by this Honorable Court.' Id. at 596. We characterized the complaint's general boilerplate language [as] superfluous and simply insufficient to support any claim upon which other relief may be granted. Id. at 597. Here, the similarly general boilerplate language in the Brousseaus' counterclaim cannot support an award of damages for breach of agreement. The Brousseaus' counterclaim was restricted to seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; nowhere does it allege the breach of an agreement to share the cost of a surveyor, nor does it request monetary damages. See Bandoni, 715 A.2d at 596-97. In addition, the Brousseaus were free to file a motion under Rule 15 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure to conform the pleadings to the evidence at trial regarding the alleged agreement between the parties to share the expense of the survey, but they did not do so. Therefore, we hold that the trial justice erroneously granted the Brousseaus relief that they did not request when he awarded them damages for a portion of the surveyor's fees. See Providence Journal Co., 824 A.2d at 1248.