Background
Rachel Mulligan filed a pro se complaint in December 2024 against her neighbors, Devin and Kelsey Duprey, alleging harassment of herself and her minor daughter. At a January 2025 hearing, Mulligan testified that the Dupreys engaged in ongoing taunting and name-calling through the bushes along the shared property line, including calling her a “big mouth rat” and composing a song mocking her daughter as a “diabetic rat.” The neighbors also blasted loud music as part of their conduct.
The trial justice found the Dupreys’ behavior constituted “unbridged harassment” and issued a preliminary injunction on February 11, 2025. The Dupreys appealed, arguing the trial justice failed to balance the equities, overlooked fabricated allegations, and disrupted the status quo.
The Court’s Holding
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the preliminary injunction without finding any abuse of discretion. Applying the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions, the court found Mulligan established: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits given the trial justice’s finding of harassment; (2) irreparable harm without relief to protect her and her daughter from ongoing conduct; (3) favorable balance of equities, as the court noted the parties had “absolutely no reason” to interact; and (4) preservation of the status quo through peaceful coexistence.
The court rejected the Dupreys’ contentions that they were the actual victims and that the injunction penalized them. The court emphasized that while a trial justice need not provide exhaustive analysis, he must articulate coherent, unambiguous reasoning on each factor—which the trial justice did here.
Key Takeaways
- Rhode Island applies a deferential “abuse of discretion” standard to preliminary injunction appeals, requiring only that the trial judge articulate a coherent basis for the four-factor analysis.
- Neighbor harassment involving name-calling, mocking, and property-line taunting can satisfy the irreparable harm and merits prongs of the preliminary injunction test.
- When neighboring parties have no practical need for interaction, courts may more readily find the balance of equities favors injunctive relief.
- A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo even if it restricts one party’s conduct, if that conduct is the departure from peaceful coexistence.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Rhode Island’s framework for granting preliminary injunctions in neighbor harassment cases, where traditional damages may be inadequate. The court’s deferential review standard means that trial courts have substantial latitude to craft equitable relief once they articulate reasoned findings on the four factors, making preliminary injunctions a practical tool for citizens facing ongoing neighbor conflicts without need for continued contact.
The case also reflects judicial impatience with juvenile neighbor disputes: the court pointedly noted that “much of the parties’ conduct is childish and not becoming of great minds in adults.” The opinion suggests that where parties can realistically cease all contact (as the Mulligans did by moving out of state), courts will readily issue injunctions rather than leaving victims exposed to harassment.