Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Six-Year Limitation on All Executions, Including Replacement Pluries Executions
Capital Video Corporation v. Joseph A. Bevilacqua, No. 2023-244 (R.I. Jul. 22, 2025)

Introduction

Capital Video Corporation v. Bevilacqua presented the Supreme Court of Rhode Island with a deceptively simple, yet practically far-reaching, question: May a judgment creditor obtain a replacement pluries execution beyond the six-year statutory window by invoking the “lost or destroyed” provision of G.L. 1956 § 9-25-19? The dispute arose after Capital Video Corporation (“CVC”) attempted—nearly 15 years after its last alias execution—to revive collection efforts against the jointly held real property of judgment debtor Joseph Bevilacqua and his wife, Donna Bevilacqua. When CVC recorded new pluries executions in 2020 and 2022, Donna intervened to block a constable’s sale of the family’s North Providence property, arguing that the executions were time-barred. The Superior Court agreed and invalidated both writs. On appeal, CVC contended that § 9-25-19 allows a replacement execution “at any time,” irrespective of § 9-25-3’s six-year limit.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Long, the Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying that the six-year limitation of § 9-25-3 applies to all executions—original, alias, or pluries—including those sought as replacements for lost or destroyed writs under § 9-25-19. Furthermore, the Court spelled out procedural prerequisites for obtaining a replacement execution, emphasizing that the creditor must (i) file a proper application, (ii) establish on the record that the prior writ was in fact lost or destroyed, and (iii) remain within the statutory period measured from the judgment or from the return day of the last valid execution.

Summary of the Judgment

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Paul v. Fortier, 117 R.I. 284, 366 A.2d 550 (1976) – Recognized the six-year period in § 9-25-3 as the legislature’s deliberate balance between creditor enforcement and debtor repose.
• Bruno v. DiPasquale, 714 A.2d 614 (R.I. 1998) (mem.) – Described the six-year limit as mandatory, not merely directory.
• Tiernan v. Magaziner, 270 A.3d 25 (R.I. 2022) – Reiterated the canon that statutes on the same subject must be read in pari materia to give effect to each.
• Evoqua Water Technologies LLC v. Moriarty, 334 A.3d 429 (R.I. 2025) – Quoted for the principle that a court should not decide moot questions.
• Several cases (e.g., Newport & New Road v. Hazard, 296 A.3d 92 (2023)) were cited for general rules of statutory construction emphasizing plain meaning and harmonization.

None of these earlier opinions specifically addressed the interaction between §§ 9-25-3 and 9-25-19. Capital Video is therefore the first Rhode Island Supreme Court decision to squarely hold that § 9-25-19 does not create an open-ended exception to the six-year rule, effectively closing a perceived loophole.

Legal Reasoning

1. Plain-Meaning & Harmonization. The Court began with traditional textual analysis. While § 9-25-19 allows a court “at any time” to issue a replacement execution on proper application and proof, § 9-25-3 simultaneously limits any execution (“original or alias,” which the Court interpreted contextually to include pluries) to a six-year window. Applying the canon that statutes must be harmonized, the Court read the phrases together: the “at any time” clause in § 9-25-19 is necessarily constrained by the temporal boundary in § 9-25-3.
2. Mandatory Nature of the Six-Year Period. Citing Bruno, the Court reaffirmed that § 9-25-3 is mandatory. Had the legislature intended to exempt replacement executions, it would have said so expressly.
3. Procedural Safeguards in § 9-25-19. The statute envisions judicial oversight. A creditor must apply to the court and prove that the prior writ “has been lost or destroyed.” Here, CVC filed only an administrative request; it never sought a hearing nor demonstrated the loss of the 2005 alias execution. The affidavit referenced the 2004 alias—which had already been released years earlier—thereby failing to satisfy the evidentiary prerequisite.
4. Failure of Proof & Timing Defect. Even if the 2005 alias had been lost, the 2020 request was fourteen years after its return date, well outside the six-year limit. Because the 2020 pluries execution was void ab initio, the 2022 execution, premised on its validity, necessarily collapsed.
5. Mootness Rejected. The Court dismissed Donna Bevilacqua’s contention that the matter was moot after denial of a stay. Denial of a stay is merely procedural; the underlying controversy—validity of the executions—remained live and capable of judicial resolution.

Impact of the Decision

The ruling has both immediate and systemic implications:

• Judgment-Collection Practice. Creditors in Rhode Island must vigilantly monitor the six-year clock. Replacement executions cannot resurrect dormant judgments beyond that period. Title examiners and closing attorneys may now treat any execution older than six years from its return date as presumptively unenforceable unless revalidated within the statutory period.
• Procedural Discipline. The decision underscores the necessity of filing a formal, noticed application for a replacement execution, with supporting evidence. Clerical issuance without a judicial finding risks invalidation and potential liability for wrongful clouds on title.
• Debtor Repose & Market Certainty. The opinion bolsters finality in land-records searches. Homeowners and transferees can rely on the six-year limitation to extinguish stale liens, promoting clarity in real estate markets.
• Legislative Signal. If policymakers wish to afford creditors a longer window or revival mechanism (as some states do through revival actions or scire facias), legislative amendment will be required. Absent such amendment, Capital Video controls.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Execution (Writ of Execution)

A court order directing a sheriff or constable to seize and sell a debtor’s property to satisfy a money judgment.

Alias Execution

The second execution issued when the first (original) writ expired without collecting the debt.

Pluries Execution

The third or any subsequent execution after an alias writ; “pluries” is Latin for “more.”

Return Date

The deadline—usually one year after issuance—by which the officer must return the writ to court, noting what property was seized or why the writ was unsatisfied.

Six-Year Limitation (§ 9-25-3)

A statutory cap: no execution (original, alias, or pluries) may be issued more than six years after either (a) the judgment date or (b) the return date of the most recent execution.

Replacement Execution (§ 9-25-19)

A new writ issued in lieu of one that was lost or destroyed before satisfaction, available only upon application and proof, and still subject to the six-year limitation.

Conclusion

Capital Video Corporation v. Bevilacqua irons out a statutory wrinkle that had caused confusion among creditors, clerks, and title attorneys. By holding that § 9-25-19 does not trump the six-year window in § 9-25-3, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reaffirmed the legislature’s intent to balance creditors’ collection rights with finality for debtors and third parties. The decision injects clarity and discipline into execution practice: creditors must (1) act within six years, (2) convene the court, and (3) prove loss or destruction of the prior writ when seeking a replacement. Failure to comply will invalidate the writ and can cloud titles, as CVC learned at significant cost. Going forward, attorneys and judgment creditors in Rhode Island must adjust their enforcement strategies to this firm timeline or risk forfeiting otherwise valid judgments.