Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Domenic Apostolico v. Deborah M. Pagliaro

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 2024-0209-Appeal.

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.9K)

• PDF

Syllabus

The defendant, Deborah M. Pagliaro, appealed from the June 17, 2024 amended final judgment of the Superior Court, which awarded the plaintiff, Domenic Apostolico, a significant sum of damages inclusive of pre judgment interest. The defendant contended (1) that the hearing justice erred in relying exclusively on Koszela v. Wilcox, 538 A.2d 150 (R.I. 1988), in reaching the conclusion that, because the property at issue in the instant case was not "income producing," the responsibility for paying property taxes rests with the remaindermen and (2) that the hearing justice erred in ruling that she was responsible for paying her share of the property taxes at issue irrespective of the provisions of G.L. 1956 §§ 44-4-6 and 44-9-6. The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice properly applied this Court's holding in Koszela and accordingly did not err in rejecting the defendant's contentions. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Combined Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2024-209-Appeal.
(PC 20-507)

Domenic Apostolico :

v. :

Deborah M. Pagliaro. :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any
typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court

No. 2024-209-Appeal.
(PC 20-507)

Domenic Apostolico :

v. :

Deborah M. Pagliaro. :

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Robinson, for the Court. The defendant, Deborah M. Pagliaro,

appeals from a June 17, 2024 amended final judgment1 of the Superior Court, which

awarded the plaintiff, Domenic Apostolico, the sum of $38,466.42 (inclusive of

pre-judgment interest). Deborah2 contends before this Court (1) that, by relying

exclusively on this Court’s opinion in the case of Koszela v. Wilcox, 538 A.2d 150

(R.I. 1988), the hearing justice erred in concluding that, because the property at

1
For the sake of accuracy, we note that the only final judgment in the record
is entitled “Amended Final Judgment,” even though the record does not contain any
prior final judgment. But this apparent oversight has absolutely no bearing on the
outcome of this case; and, in the interest of clarity, we will hereinafter refer to the
Amended Final Judgment simply as the final judgment.
2
Throughout this opinion, we will frequently refer to the individuals having a
connection to this case by their first names in order to avoid confusion. No
disrespect is intended.

-1-
issue was not “income producing,” the responsibility for paying property taxes rests

with the remaindermen3 and (2) that the hearing justice erred in ruling that Deborah

was responsible for paying her share of the property taxes at issue irrespective of

the provisions of G.L. 1956 §§ 44-4-6 and 44-9-6.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the

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

summarily decided. 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.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court.

I

Facts4 and Travel
In 1987, Dorothy Apostolico and Domenic Apostolico, Sr. (Domenic, Sr.)

built a house at 518 Scituate Avenue in Cranston, Rhode Island (the house or the

property). It is uncontested that, after the death of Domenic, Sr., Dorothy was of

3
Deborah also seeks to distinguish the instant case from Koszela v. Wilcox,
538 A.2d 150 (R.I. 1988), by contrasting the undeveloped nature of the land in that
case with the fact that the land at issue in this case was developed. We shall address
that issue in due course.
4
The material facts relative to this case are uncontested.

-2-
limited financial means; it is also uncontested that, on October 15, 2004, she deeded

the property to three children born of her marriage to Domenic, Sr.—namely

Domenic Apostolico, Jr., Deborah Pagliaro, and Lorraine Mathewson.5 The deed

provided that those children would own the property as joint tenants, while Dorothy

reserved a life estate for herself. The deed was silent as to who would be responsible

for taxes.

Dorothy lived in the Scituate Avenue house until March of 2023; she

thereafter moved into a nursing home. There is no evidence that the property

produced any income between the time that the deed was recorded in 2004 until the

instant action was brought in 2020. It is further uncontested that Domenic has

resided in the house since March of 2023 and since that time has assumed the

obligation of paying all taxes6 and certain other expenses, but he does not pay rent.

It is the taxes on the property during much of the term of Dorothy’s residence there

5
In the parlance of traditional property law, Domenic, Deborah, and Lorraine
are classified as “remaindermen.” The case at bar, however, involves only two of
the remaindermen—namely Domenic and Deborah. Lorraine has never been a
party to this case. According to Domenic, he has been reimbursed by Lorraine as a
consequence of her status as a remainderman with a one-third interest in the
property. In contrast, it is uncontested that Domenic has not received any such
reimbursement from Deborah.
6
Domenic testified at his deposition that, although the City of Cranston
identified “Apostolico Dorothy Life Estate” as the addressee of the tax bills at issue,
it was he who actually paid the property taxes while Dorothy lived there.

-3-
as a life tenant that are at issue in this case; Domenic paid those taxes, and the case

at bar deals with his attempt to be reimbursed by Deborah for her share thereof.

On January 22, 2020, after having sent Deborah written requests for

reimbursement, which were not successful, Domenic filed a complaint in the

Superior Court for Providence County, asserting claims for contribution (Count

One) and unjust enrichment (Count Two). After considering a motion to dismiss

filed by Deborah, a hearing justice dismissed Count One on the grounds that it

“fail[ed] to provide adequate notice of the claim being asserted * * *.” The hearing

justice granted Domenic leave to amend his complaint so as to replace Count One

“with a cognizable legal claim for relief.”7

On September 28, 2020, Domenic filed an amended complaint, in which he

sought a judgment whereby Deborah would be required to pay her share of the taxes

for the Scituate Avenue property from January 22, 2010 forward.8 The amended

complaint contained two counts, the first sounding in quasi-contract and the second

sounding in unjust enrichment.

7
The hearing justice also ruled on a statute of limitations defense raised by
Deborah, but that ruling has not been appealed by either party.
8
Domenic sought reimbursement from Deborah for sewer taxes as well as
property taxes, and he eventually prevailed in the Superior Court as to both types
of taxes. For the sake of simplicity, however, we shall use the term “property taxes”
to refer to both types of taxes.

-4-
On October 31, 2023, Domenic filed a motion for partial summary judgment

on the issue of what he contended was Deborah’s obligation to reimburse him for

taxes plus pre-judgment interest.9 On January 12, 2024, Deborah filed an objection

to Domenic’s motion for partial summary judgment as well as a cross-motion for

summary judgment.10 The hearing justice (not the same hearing justice as had ruled

on the above-referenced motion to dismiss) rendered a bench decision on February

27, 2024, wherein he granted Domenic’s motion in part. He ruled that, even

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Domenic

was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the property law issues implicated

by this case. However, he denied Domenic’s motion for summary judgment with

respect to the precise amount owed, ruling that issues of fact in that regard remained

to be determined.

In rendering his decision, the hearing justice relied on Justice Shea’s cogent

decision for a unanimous Court in the case of Koszela v. Wilcox, 538 A.2d 150 (R.I.

1988). The hearing justice stated that, even though no obligation for the

9
Domenic’s amended complaint had sought reimbursement from Deborah for
maintenances as well as for property taxes, but Domenic sought summary judgment
solely on the issue of Deborah’s liability with respect to the tax issue.
10
In her cross-motion for summary judgment, which was eventually denied by
the hearing justice, Deborah sought judgment against Domenic with respect to both
counts in his amended complaint.

-5-
remaindermen to pay the property taxes was provided for in the relevant deed, this

Court’s holding in Koszela was controlling in view of its clear language to the effect

that, while it is ordinarily the obligation of the life tenant to pay property taxes, it

nonetheless becomes the obligation of the remaindermen to pay those taxes when

the property does not produce income. Koszela, 538 A.2d at 151. In addition, the

hearing justice ruled that, while the particular parcel in Koszela consisted of

undeveloped land, “the fact that the property in question [in the instant case] is a

developed residential estate does not change the obligation of a remainderman to

pay taxes.”

On March 8, 2024, an order reflecting the hearing justice’s decision was

entered, granting Domenic’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to

Deborah’s obligation to pay property taxes, but denying the motion with respect to

the exact amount of taxes due from Deborah.11

Final judgment entered on June 17, 2024 in the amount of $38,466.42,

representing Deborah’s one-third share of the taxes at issue plus pre-judgment

interest. On July 3, 2024, Deborah filed a timely notice of appeal.

11
It appears that, after the issuance of the March 8, 2024 order, the parties
reached agreement as to the amount that would be due from Deborah if her appeal
was not successful. The issue of the amount due is not before us on appeal.

-6-
II

Issues on Appeal
On appeal, Deborah contends that the hearing justice erred in granting

Domenic’s motion for partial summary judgment. Deborah specifically claims that

the hearing justice erred in ruling that the remaindermen were responsible for

property taxes on the grounds that the property was not “income producing.” In

addition, Deborah argues that the hearing justice’s decision “contradicts and would

effectively void” § 44-4-6.12

III

Standard of Review

This Court reviews a hearing justice’s grant of summary judgment de novo,

applying “the same rules and standards that the hearing justice used.” New Phase

Realty, LLC v. Fournier, 337 A.3d 695, 700 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Estate of Giuliano

v. Giuliano, 949 A.2d 386, 391 (R.I. 2008)). Moreover, “[i]n addressing a motion

for summary judgment, the evidence is to be examined in a light most favorable to

12
General Laws 1956 § 44-4-6 reads as follows:

“Estates in the possession of a tenant for life or for a term
of ten (10) or more years when by the terms of his or her
lease the tenant for years is required to pay the taxes on
the estate, may be taxed to the tenant, who, for the
purposes of taxation is deemed the owner.”

-7-
the nonmoving party, and we will affirm the judgment if we conclude that there are

no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” Meeks v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, 289 A.3d

1179, 1183 (R.I. 2023). In addition, we have stated that “[i]t is important to bear in

mind that the purpose of the summary judgment procedure is issue finding, not issue

determination.” Estate of Giuliano, 949 A.2d at 391 (internal quotation marks

omitted). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he nonmoving party must

prove the existence of a disputed issue of material fact by competent evidence and

may not rely upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, mere conclusions or

mere legal opinions.” New Phase Realty, LLC, 337 A.3d at 700 (internal quotation

marks omitted).

IV

Analysis
On appeal, Deborah primarily contends that the hearing justice erred by

holding that the remaindermen were responsible for the taxes at issue on the basis

of the fact that the property was not “income producing.” Deborah also contends

that the hearing justice erred by relying exclusively on Koszela; she contends that

Koszela is distinguishable because that case involved non-income-producing land,

whereas in the present case the life tenant (viz., Dorothy) lived on the property,

-8-
thereby “enjoy[ing] a beneficial interest in the property * * *.”13 Domenic, for his

part, contends that the hearing justice properly held as a matter of law that Koszela

applied because it is undisputed that the property has not produced any income

during the relevant time.

After carefully considering Deborah’s arguments, we are not persuaded by

them. We are in complete agreement with the hearing justice that this Court’s

holding in Koszela is controlling. Long before the decision in Koszela, this Court

had acknowledged the general rule that, absent any provision by the grantor to the

contrary, the life tenant is responsible for the payment of taxes. Sheffield v. Cooke,

39 R.I. 217, 228, 98 A. 161, 165 (1916). Of great significance, however, is the fact

that the Sheffield opinion went on to clearly articulate an exception to that general

rule, stating that “the law is clear that taxes assessed against unproductive real estate

are not chargeable to the life tenant * * *.” Sheffield, 39 R.I. at 244, 98 A. at 171;14

see Koszela, 538 A.2d at 151; see also Calcagni v. Cirino, 65 R.I. 408, 414, 14 A.2d

13
We see no reason for departing from the holding in Koszela v. Wilcox, 538
A.2d 150 (R.I. 1988), simply because the life tenant in this case (Dorothy) who had
deeded the property to the three remaindermen (her children) chose to reside there.
It is not alleged that she generated any actual income merely by living in the house
on the property.
14
It is noteworthy that, many years after the Sheffield opinion was issued, this
Court summarized the pertinent holding in that case as follows: “[T]o the extent the
property is not income-producing, it is taxable to the remainderman.” Delta
Airlines, Inc. v. Neary, 785 A.2d 1123, 1129 (R.I. 2001) (emphasis in original).

-9-
803, 805 (1940). Koszela reaffirmed the Sheffield rule by holding that, in cases

where the property is not productive of any income during the life tenancy, the

remaindermen are obliged to pay the taxes.15 Koszela, 538 A.2d at 151. This

Court’s unanimous opinion in Koszela, is very clear as to this point:

“The majority rule appears to be that in situations in
which land is not productive of any income during
the life tenancy, the life tenant is not bound to pay
any of the ordinary taxes or any special assessments
for betterments, but rather the remainderman or
remaindermen must pay them.” Koszela, 538 A.2d
at 151.

There has been no evidence presented that the property at issue in this case

produced any income during the term of the life tenancy. Therefore, in accordance

with the clear holding in Koszela, the remaindermen were required to pay the

property taxes. See Koszela, 538 A.2d at 151.

It will be recalled that Deborah also contends that the hearing justice’s

decision “contradicts and would effectively void” § 44-4-6. (Said statute is quoted

15
Contrary to Deborah’s argument, Koszela was not based on a distinction
between developed and undeveloped land; rather it focused on whether the land
generated income during the life tenancy. Koszela, 538 A.2d at 151. Accordingly,
the fact that the Scituate Avenue property at some point in time may have been
improved by the construction of a residential house does not change the obligation
of the remaindermen to be liable for the taxes when the property does not produce
income during the term of the life tenancy. Moreover, we perceive no basis in
statutory language or in our own decided cases for holding that the mere fact that a
life tenant resides on the property without paying rent renders that property “income
producing.”

• 10 - in its entirety in footnote 12, supra.) We are unpersuaded by Deborah’s argument

in this regard. We have considered the reasoning of the Court in Koszela with

respect to that statute, and we find ourselves to be in full agreement with that

reasoning. As previously noted, the Court in Koszela reaffirmed its adherence to

the rule that “a life estate in land which produces no income will not require the life

tenant to pay ordinary taxes or special assessments when the deed or other

instrument that created the life estate places no such burden on the life tenant.”

Koszela, 538 A.2d at 151. The Court in Koszela then immediately proceeded to

address § 44-4-6 as follows:

“[Section 44-4-6] merely allows parties who create a life
estate or a leasehold for ten years or more to make the life
tenant or leaseholder responsible for the payment of such
taxes. This does not prevent a city or town assessor from
implementing the provisions of § 44-4-6 by billing the life
tenant or tenant for years for taxes as they accrue and
selling that life estate or other limited interest for taxes.
However, if the remainderman pays such taxes to protect
his own interests, he has no right of action against the life
tenant for reimbursement if the property is unproductive
of income.” Koszela, 538 A.2d at 151.

We unreservedly agree with the reasoning of the Court in Koszela in this regard.

For the same reason, we are unpersuaded by Deborah’s contention that the

hearing justice’s ruling in the instant case cannot be squared with the provisions of

G.L. 1956 § 44-9-6, which reads as follows: “In case of a life estate, the interest of

the tenant for life shall first be liable for the tax, and the remainderman, if assessed,

• 11 - shall be secondarily liable.” Just as the above-quoted passage from this Court’s

opinion in Koszela reconciled the language in § 44-4-6 with the fact that land that

is not productive of any income triggers an exception to the general principle that a

life tenant is responsible for the payment of taxes, a similar exception is applicable

with respect to § 44-9-6.

V

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court. The record may be returned to that tribunal.

• 12 - STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case Domenic Apostolico v. Deborah Pagliaro.

No. 2024-209-Appeal.
Case Number
(PC 20-507)

Date Opinion Filed February 20, 2026

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.

Written By Associate Justice William P. Robinson III

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Joseph McBurney

For Plaintiff:

Vicki J. Bejma, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendant:

Michael J. Jacobs, Esq.