Clarification of Rule 52(c) Judgment as a Matter of Law and Attorneys’ Fees Under § 9-1-45

Introduction

Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, Inc. (2025) is a landmark Rhode Island Supreme Court decision that addresses two frequently contested issues in civil litigation:

1. The proper standard for granting a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 52(c) in a bench (non-jury) trial, and
2. The scope and timing of an award of attorneys’ fees under General Laws 1956 § 9-1-45 (“§ 9-1-45”)—Rhode Island’s statutory exception to the American Rule in breach-of-contract litigation.

At issue were alleged defects in marine cofferdams used in the replacement of the Sakonnet River Bridge. Cashman (the sub-contractor) sued the prime contractor (Cardi) for breach of contract and related claims. Cashman then impleaded a specialized diving subcontractor (Specialty Diving Services, Inc. or SDS), asserting that any liability to Cardi should be borne by SDS. After a forty-day bench trial, the Superior Court granted SDS’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded SDS its attorneys’ fees. Cashman appealed, challenging both the Rule 52(c) ruling and the fees award, and invoking bankruptcy discharge principles.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court in full. Key holdings:

• Rule 52(c) Judgment as a Matter of Law: In a bench trial, the trial justice is entitled—and required—to evaluate credibility and weigh evidence when deciding a post-hearing motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial justice’s grant of SDS’s motion, given the absence of record testimony to support any material breach by SDS.
• Attorneys’ Fees Under § 9-1-45: The trial justice correctly awarded SDS reasonable fees. The Court rejected Cashman’s arguments that (a) the denial of summary judgment precluded a subsequent finding of “complete absence” of a justiciable issue of fact; (b) the law-of-the-case doctrine barred relitigation of that question; and (c) Cashman’s bankruptcy discharge barred SDS’s fee claim as a “contingent” pre-confirmation debt.
• Bankruptcy Code Objection: The Court held that SDS’s entitlement to fees was not a pre‐discharge contingent claim, but arose only upon successful motion practice after reorganization. The award therefore survived the Chapter 11 confirmation discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The majority relied on established Rhode Island and federal precedents to frame its analysis:

• Cathay Cathay, Inc. v. Vindalu, LLC, 962 A.2d 740 (R.I. 2009): Clarifies that, in bench trials, Rule 52(c) empowers the trial justice to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility on a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
• Bennett v. Steliga, 300 A.3d 558 (R.I. 2023): Re-states the summary‐judgment standard and distinguishes it from post-trial, bench-trial motions.
• ADP Marshall, Inc. v. Noresco, LLC, 710 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D.R.I. 2010): Defines “complete absence” of a justiciable question under § 9-1-45.
• In re CD Realty Partners, 205 B.R. 651 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1997): Explains the treatment of “contingent” claims under the Bankruptcy Code.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three parts:

1. Rule 52(c) Standard: Unlike in jury trials, bench‐trial motions under Rule 52(c) require the trial justice to re-evaluate the entire evidentiary record. This includes credibility assessments, so there is no error in granting SDS a post-hearing JMOL when the court finds that Cashman failed to establish any breach by SDS.
2. § 9-1-45 Attorneys’ Fees: The statute authorizes fees where there is “a complete absence of a justiciable issue of . . . fact.” Denial of summary judgment, which applies a different standard (and which forbids credibility determinations), does not bar later findings at the close of the case that no justiciable fact issue survives. The Court rejected the law‐of‐the‐case argument because the intervening trial greatly expanded the record and involved multiple credibility determinations.
3. Bankruptcy Discharge: A creditor’s lawyers’‐fee claim is discharged only if the liability was a “contingent” pre‐confirmation claim. Here, SDS’s right to fees did not crystallize until after the post-trial ruling—a post-confirmation event— and thus it survived the Chapter 11 discharge. The Court followed federal circuits which hold that voluntary post-petition litigation can give rise to non-discharged fee liabilities.

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision provides clear guidance on two fronts:

• Litigants in Rhode Island bench trials now have certainty that:
  • Rule 52(c) truly permits post-trial credibility assessments,
  • Summary-judgment denial does not immunize a losing party from a later determination of “complete absence” under § 9-1-45.
• Contracting parties and Chapter 11 debtors can better predict fee-award exposure: a creditor must await a final, post-trial determination to claim fees, and a Chapter 11 debtor who continues pre-petition litigation beyond confirmation cannot discharge those future costs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 52(c) vs. Summary Judgment:

• Summary Judgment (Rule 56): Before trial, judge views evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—no credibility calls.
• Rule 52(c) Judgment as a Matter of Law: At the end of a bench trial, judge can weigh evidence, decide who to believe, and grant judgment if no factual issue remains for decision.

“Complete Absence of a Justiciable Issue” (§ 9-1-45): A narrow trigger for fee awards—only when the losing party did not raise one reasonable question of fact or law that could have gone to trial.

Contingent Claims & Bankruptcy Discharge: Under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1), a debtor who confirms a reorganization plan discharges debts existing at confirmation—unless they were not even “fixed” until after that date. SDS’s fee claim was not fixed until the post-trial ruling, so it survived discharge.

Conclusion

Cashman Equipment Corp. v. Cardi Corp. stands as a milestone clarifying:

• The proper application of Rule 52(c) in bench trials—affirming that credibility assessments and evidence weighing occur at the JMOL stage,
• The precise contours of attorneys’-fee awards under § 9-1-45, and
• The interplay between post-trial fee rights and Chapter 11 discharge under the Bankruptcy Code.

Together, these holdings will shape strategy for litigants, counsel, and courts in Rhode Island and offer persuasive authority elsewhere.