## Facts

- Armando Matarese, a businessman in Forio, Ischia (Italy), sought to purchase a parcel owned by Anna Coppa DiMaio, a U.S.-born owner who had never been to Italy.
- Matarese had built a structure that encroached on DiMaio’s land and wanted to acquire the parcel to resolve the encroachment.
- Paolo Calise, originally from Forio but residing in Rhode Island, agreed to locate DiMaio in the United States and arrange the purchase for Matarese.
- Matarese provided Calise funds for the purchase, but Calise took title to the Italian property in his own name and misrepresented the purchase price and payments.
- Matarese sued Calise in Rhode Island Superior Court seeking an accounting, an order compelling conveyance of the Italian property, damages, and other equitable relief.
- The parties and trial justice treated the matter as equitable; the case was tried to the court with an advisory jury under Rule 39(c).
- The advisory jury found no March 1966 meeting in Forio between the parties but found Matarese sent $3,000 to Calise in 1968.
- The trial justice rejected the advisory jury’s “no meeting” finding, made independent findings, and ordered Calise to convey the Italian property to Matarese.
- Calise appealed; he had returned to Italy after the action commenced.

## Issues

1. Whether a Rhode Island court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant may, in equity, order the defendant to convey real property located in a foreign country.
2. Whether, in an equitable action tried with an advisory jury under Rule 39(c), the trial justice may disregard the advisory jury’s findings and make independent findings of fact.
3. Whether the defendant’s departure from Rhode Island after suit was filed defeats the court’s authority to enter and enforce an in personam equitable decree.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering Calise to convey the Italian real estate to Matarese.
- The court held that an equity court acting in personam may compel a defendant within its personal jurisdiction to execute a conveyance of land located outside the forum, including in a foreign country.
- The court held that an advisory jury’s findings under Rule 39(c) are not binding; the trial justice may accept or reject them and must make independent findings.
- The court treated jurisdiction as fixed when the action was commenced and not defeated by Calise’s later move to Italy.

## Legal Principles

- A court of equity with in personam jurisdiction over a defendant may order the defendant to perform acts, including conveying real property located in another jurisdiction; the decree operates on the person, not directly on the foreign land.
- Such an in personam decree may be enforced through the court’s coercive powers (including contempt) against the defendant.
- In an equitable case tried with an advisory jury under Rule 39(c), the advisory verdict is “merely advisory” and does not bind the trial justice, who is responsible for fact-finding.
- When an agent or fiduciary acquires property in the agent’s name using funds provided for the principal’s benefit, equity may treat the agent as holding the property for the principal and compel conveyance to prevent unjust enrichment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an order compelling conveyance of Italian real estate because the Rhode Island court’s equitable power acted in personam on a defendant subject to its jurisdiction, and the trial justice properly made independent findings despite contrary advisory jury responses.


Matarese v. Calise, 305 A.2d 112 (R.I. 1973)