Opinion ID: 2348552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amendment of Plaintiff's Complaint

Text: The defendant argues that the trial justice erred in granting plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law [1] because the trial justice predicated his decision on a theory that was not properly raised in plaintiff's complaint. According to defendant, allowing plaintiff to proceed on the new theory constituted an unfair amendment of plaintiff's complaint. [2] We begin by noting that it is undisputed that plaintiff never specifically included a separate count for breach of warranty of title in his amended complaint. Further, plaintiffnever formally asked to amend his complaint to include a separate count for breach of warranty of title and, accordingly, the trial justice never granted plaintiff permission to so amend his complaint. In any event, we need not consider whether an amendment was either necessary or proper in this situation because the record reveals that defendant did not object to plaintiff's theory of the case, that impoundment constitutes a breach of the warranty of title, until after the jury was charged and returned its verdict. Under Rule 15(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, [w]hen issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Failure to amend the pleadings to conform to litigated issues that were not properly pleaded does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. Id. The defendant did not lodge an objection on these grounds during plaintiff's case, its own case or after the trial justice's rulings on the parties' Rule 50 motions. [3] When the trial justice denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff's case, he specifically held that the warranty of title of the Uniform Commercial Code subsumes a quiet enjoyment which can be disturbed by law enforcement impoundment. By failing to object, defendant impliedly consented to litigation of that issue at trial. See Fram Corp. v. Davis, 121 R.I. 583, 591, 401 A.2d 1269, 1274 (1979). B