Opinion ID: 1952878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Availability of a Private Right of Action Under Chapter 20.8 of Title 5

Text: In his amended complaint, the buyer attempted to allege a private cause of action for damages against defendants for their asserted violations of the act's disclosure provisions. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the seller, the seller's real-estate agent, and his own real-estate agent all failed to disclose to him a defective condition on the property (namely, severe erosion) as required by the act. The buyer also averred that the seller never provided him with a disclosure statement, as required by § 5-20.8-2. The act itself, however, does not include language specifically vesting buyers with a private right of action for damages against sellers or agents who violate its provisions. The act merely provides that each violation of this statute by the seller and/or his or her agent is subject to a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) per occurrence. Section 5-20.8-5(b). As we have previously stated, the function of prescribing remedies for [statutory] rights is a legislative responsibility [and] not a judicial task. Cummings v. Shorey, 761 A.2d 680, 685 (R.I.2000). In Cummings, we held that the General Assembly's failure to include a civil-action enforcement provision within a statute indicated no private cause of action for damages [under the statute] was intended. Id. Here, the Legislature has prescribed a particular enforcement provision: namely, that a violation of the act subjects the violator to a civil penalty of $100 per occurrence. See § 5-20.8-5(b). This enforcement provision contemplates a civil fine for violations of the act, rather than a private lawsuit for damages. [1] When a statute does not plainly provide for a private cause of action [for damages], such a right cannot be inferred. Bandoni v. State, 715 A.2d 580, 584 (R.I.1998) (quoting In re John, 605 A.2d 486, 488 (R.I.1992)). In light of the Legislature's plain language providing for a civil fine for each violation of § 5-20.8-5, we decline to imply the existence of a private right of action in favor of buyers to sue for damages under the act. Thus, in holding that no right exists to file a private suit for civil damages under the act, we affirm the motion justice's grant of summary judgment to the agents under count 10 of the buyer's amended complaint. On remand, we also direct the Superior Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the seller on this claim, because the act also fails to create a private right of action for damages in favor of the buyer against the seller for alleged violations of the act.