Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Michelle Willette appealed a circuit court decision issuing a writ of possession in favor of plaintiff, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). In February 2013, Freddie Mac purchased Willette's property through a foreclosure sale. Freddie Mac subsequently filed a landlord and tenant writ in the district division seeking possession of the premises. After a hearing, Willette filed the required recognizance with the district division and then filed a title action in superior court. In April 2014, Freddie Mac removed the title action from the superior court to the federal district court. The federal district court granted Freddie Mac’s motion to dismiss Willette’s title action. Afterward, Freddie Mac filed a motion in superior court for the issuance of a writ of possession, which was denied. Freddie Mac then requested a hearing in the district division on the merits of its possessory action. At the hearing, Willette argued that the district division lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession. The district division disagreed and issued the writ. On appeal, Willette argued that the district division erred in issuing the writ of possession because: (1) it lacked jurisdiction over the possessory action; and (2) Freddie Mac failed to obtain judgment pertaining to its possessory action in both the superior court and the federal district court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Willette" on Justia Law

Respondents Mesiti Development, Inc., JVL Construction Company, Inc., and Brook Hollow Corporation, appealed a superior court order dismissing their counterclaims against petitioner Town of Londonderry. In 2012, the Town filed a bill of interpleader to determine whether $264,517.02 in surplus impact fees collected under the Town’s impact fee ordinance should have been refunded to the developers who paid the impact fees or to the current owners of the properties for which the fees had been paid. Although the Town’s impact fee ordinance specifies that the current owners are entitled to the refunds, the Town sought to confirm that the ordinance is consistent with the impact fee statute. The bill listed seventeen properties and their respective impact fee payors and current owners. Additional parties intervened thereafter. Several parties, including the respondents, moved to add counterclaims alleging, among other things: (1) violations of RSA 674:21, V; (2) negligence; (3) violation of fiduciary duties owed to impact fee payors; (4) violation of the public trust in government; and (5) violation of the municipal budget law. The Town filed a motion to dismiss these counterclaims, which the trial court granted. This appeal followed. Finding no reversible error in the order dismissing these claims, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Town of Londonderry v. Mesiti Development, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Lisa Tagalakis Fedor was convicted by jury of knowingly keeping or maintaining a common nuisance. Defendant lived in Manchester with her boyfriend and her two children. In January 2013, the boyfriend approached defendant about allowing Robert Doane to move in with them. Doane was an acquaintance of the boyfriend’s from whom the boyfriend had purchased heroin. Defendant agreed to allow Doane to move into a spare bedroom. Defendant knew that Doane sold drugs and allowed him to continue to do so after he moved in, but asked him not to sell drugs inside the house. After moving in, Doane began selling heroin on the street outside of the residence. Inside the residence, Doane installed a padlock on his bedroom door, but defendant had witnessed Doane in his bedroom, packaging heroin into “individual baggies.” Doane, despite being a convicted felon, also obtained a stolen firearm that he kept in the house. Defendant was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit the sale of a controlled drug and one count of knowingly keeping or maintaining a common nuisance. Defendant moved for JNOV, or, in the alternative, to set aside the verdict. The trial court denied her requests for relief, and this appeal followed. Defendant argued on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied her motion for JNOV, specifically, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that her residence was “used for the selling of the controlled drug heroin” because “drugs were not sold from inside the residence”; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that she “maintained a common nuisance under RSA 318-B:16” because she “did not control or ‘maintain’ Doane’s padlocked room.” The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict was supported by the evidence at trial, and did not constitute an unsustainable exercise of discretion. View "New Hampshire v. Fedor" on Justia Law

Petitioners Robert and Katherine Michele, trustees of the Robert C. Michele Revocable Trust (Micheles), appealed a Wetlands Council decision to uphold a decision of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) to issue a permit allowing respondents Joseph and Linda Bremner to install a seasonal dock in water adjacent to the Micheles’ pond-front property over which the Bremners had an easement. The Supreme Court affirmed. "Contrary to the Micheles’ argument that the legislature could not have intended easement holders to be able to apply for a permit under the statute, we see no evidence that the purpose of the statute was to change the balance of property rights between fee owners and easement holders from what it was under the common law. [. . .] possession is not a requirement of an 'ownership' interest in land. [. . .] when there is an express grant of an easement, 'a grantee takes by implication whatever rights are reasonably necessary to enable it to enjoy the easement beneficially. This includes the right to make improvements that are reasonably necessary to enjoy the easement.'" View "Appeal of Robert Michele" on Justia Law

Plaintiff David Eldridge was a resident and condominium owner at the Whip-Poor-Will Condominium Complex in Hudson. The condominium complex was governed by two different entities: the Condominium Owners' Association (COA) and the Rolling Green at Whip-Poor-Will Townhouse Owners' Association (TOA). Each association had separate and distinct legal obligations as set forth in the Condominium Declaration. Plaintiff has several disabling impairments that impact his mobility. When a walkway had not been repaired as he requested, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against the COA with the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission (HRC). Shortly thereafter, the COA repaired the plaintiff's walkway. The HRC, which continued to investigate the matter despite the repair, determined that there was probable cause to support a finding of discrimination and notified the COA that it had scheduled a public hearing on the complaint. The COA subsequently removed the case to superior court and filed a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds. As relevant to this appeal, the COA argued that plaintiff's discrimination complaint should be dismissed because the HRC had not commenced proceedings within twenty-four months after the filing of the charge of discrimination, as required by statute. The Superior Court denied the COA's motion to dismiss, concluding that the twenty-four month limit specified in the statute was not jurisdictional. The COA then filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that: (1) the case was moot because the walkway had been repaired; (2) the COA was not an entity covered by the Human Rights Act; (3) the plaintiff's claim was time-barred; (4) there was no dispute that the COA had accommodated the plaintiff; and (5) the COA had no legal obligation or authority to replace the walkway because it was located in a Townhouse Limited Common Area. The Superior Court (Temple, J.) granted the COA's motion for summary judgment on the ground that, under the plain language of the Declaration, the COA lacked authority over plaintiff's walkway and, as such, plaintiff had pursued the wrong party in seeking an accommodation. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration in which he asserted, for the first time, that because the COA had arranged for the walkway to be repaired, it had authority to repair the walkway. The court denied plaintiff's motion, reaffirming its earlier determination that the TOA, not the COA, had sole control over the walkway, and refusing to consider both plaintiff's theory regarding the COA's "assumed" authority over the walkway and any "new evidence" in support thereof. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. The Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff's complaint was untimely under RSA 354-A:21, III, and as such, affirmed dismissal of his case. View "Eldridge v. Rolling Green at Whip-Poor-Will Condo. Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jillian Bergeron appeals a Superior Court order lifting a preliminary injunction on the foreclosure sale of her home and dismissing her case. Plaintiff executed a promissory note in favor of Drew Mortgage Associates, Inc. The Mortgage identified Drew Mortgage as the lender, plaintiff as the mortgagor, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the mortgagee. MERS later assigned the Mortgage to defendant New York Community Bank. The Note was also apparently transferred a number of times, because an allonge with a number of endorsements appears in the record. Defendant notified plaintiff of the foreclosure sale. On or about April 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a verified petition to enjoin the foreclosure sale and for an ex parte restraining order. She admitted falling behind on her payments, but challenged defendant’s authority to foreclose because “[i]t appears that at the very least, [the defendant] does not own the note.” Following denial of plaintiff’s loan modification application, defendant requested that the court lift the injunction and allow the foreclosure sale to proceed. The court did so, ruling, in relevant part, that defendant “has the authority to foreclose whether it actually holds the note or is merely acting as an agent for the entity which holds the note.” On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in: (1) ruling that the entity foreclosing a mortgage need not hold both the mortgage and the note; (2) finding that plaintiff clearly intended that the Note and Mortgage be held by separate entities; and (3) failing to make the necessary finding that defendant was entitled to enforce the Note. These specific arguments, however, were largely subsumed within plaintiff’s more general contention that because “the mortgage and note are not severable,” a mortgagee must be entitled to enforce the promissory note in order to conduct a foreclosure sale pursuant to RSA chapter 479. The Supreme Court affirmed. Because the Mortgage evidenced an agency relationship between the lender (Drew Mortgage) and the mortgagee (MERS), and the Mortgage contemplated that both the lender and MERS could assign their interests, and plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the assignment of either the Note or the Mortgage, the Court concluded that defendant has the authority, as agent of the noteholder, to exercise the power of sale. Therefore, the Court held that the trial court did not err in lifting the injunction and dismissing the action. The Court did not address whether defendant could foreclose if the agency relationship was irregular or legitimately challenged by the plaintiff. We also need not decide whether, absent an agency relationship between the noteholder and the mortgage holder, a party who holds only the mortgage has the authority to foreclose. View "Bergeron v. New York Community Bank" on Justia Law

The City of Laconia owned and maintained Opechee Park. In May 2012, plaintiff Margaret Dolbeare was enjoying the playground equipment at the park with her granddaughter. As plaintiff approached the park swings, her foot caught under the edge of a mat. She fell and suffered injuries. This case was an interlocutory appeal by the City when the Superior Court denied its motion to dismiss negligence and nuisance claims. The trial court transferred two questions for the Supreme Court's review: (1) did the trial court err in finding that the City owed Plaintiff a duty, despite RSA 212:34, II; and (2) did the trial court err in holding that the City was not immune from suit under RSA 508:14, I, because “using playground equipment is not . . . recreation within the meaning of RSA 508:14”? After review, the Court answered both questions in the affirmative as they related to plaintiff’s negligence claim. Plaintiff argued that, notwithstanding either RSA 212:34, II or RSA 508:14, I, the City was liable for its alleged negligence under RSA 507-B:2 (2010). Because the trial court did not address this argument, the Supreme Court declined to do so in the first instance. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court’s order denying the City’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligence claim. View "Dolbeare v. City of Laconia" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jennifer Pike appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment to respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as Trustee), in her action to enjoin the foreclosure sale of real property located in New London. On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court erred when it determined that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the mortgage to the Trust, and when it declined to enjoin the foreclosure, notwithstanding her assertion that she had a homestead right. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pike v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Doug and Gayle Mellin brought a declaratory judgment action asserting, in relevant part, that their homeowner’s insurance policy with defendant Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc. required Northern to reimburse them for losses to their condominium caused by cat urine odor. Plaintiffs' downstairs neighbor kept two cats in her condominium. They surmised that the smell entered their unit from the downstairs condominium through an open plumbing chase servicing the kitchen. In December 2010, plaintiffs filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy, which was denied. Epping's building/health inspector examined the unit and sent a letter to plaintiffs stating that they "have a health problem existing" and the odor "is such that [they] need to move out of[] the apartment temporarily and have a company terminate the odor." Remediation proved unsuccessful. Plaintiffs continued to reside in the unit until February 1, 2011. They claimed that, after that time, they "could [not] have tenants," although they occasionally occupied the unit. Ultimately, they sold their condominium. They claimed that the sale price for the unit was significantly less than that for a comparable condominium in the area which was unaffected by cat urine odor. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Northern. The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment: plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate a "tangible physical alteration" to the unit to prove that the unit was rendered permanently uninhabitable. "Rather, to demonstrate a physical loss under Coverage A, they must establish a distinct and demonstrable alteration to the unit." The Court also reversed with regard to a "pollution exclusion clause" found in plaintiffs' policy: "pollution exclusion clause is ambiguous when applied to the facts of this case and, as such, does not preclude coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims." And with regard to "Coverage D," the Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting Northern judgment as a matter of law. This was vacated, and the entire case remanded for further proceedings. View "Mellin v. Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Heilan Grimes appealed a Circuit Court order granting a writ of possession for property located in Nashua to plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. The sole issue on appeal was whether, under RSA 540:2, II(e) (Supp. 2014), a property owner’s desire to market, sell and/or convey property in a vacant condition constituted “other good cause” for purposes of terminating a tenancy. In the absence of evidence of selective eviction or other acts of bad faith, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff’s stated reason for eviction satisfied the statute. View "JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Grimes" on Justia Law