Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed a superior court order that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Petitioner Rebecca Rivera. The court ruled that an automobile policy (policy) issued to Rivera’s parents excluded liability coverage but afforded uninsured motorist coverage for injuries Rivera sustained in a single-vehicle accident in Dracut, Massachusetts. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Petitioner's favor: "the terms of the owned vehicle exclusion appear to remove [Petitioner's vehicle] from the definition of uninsured motor vehicle even though, as to Rivera, there [was] no insurance available. While Liberty Mutual is free to limit the extent of its liability through the use of an exclusion it cannot do so in contravention of statutory provisions or public policy." View "Rivera v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins.Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire (PFFNH) appealed a superior court order that ruled Defendant The New Hampshire Local Government Center (LGC), was not required to provide certain meeting minutes under the Right-to-Know Law. LGC produced the vast majority of the documents requested by PFFNH, but redacted certain portions under a claim of attorney-client privilege. Dissatisfied with the redacted records, PFFNH moved to compel LGC to produce the unredacted minutes of fourteen meetings that occurred between 2000 and 2009. PFFNH argued that the redacted portions should have been released because the oral communications of LGC’s counsel occurred during meetings that were open to the public under RSA chapter 91-A, thereby defeating any claim of privilege. The superior court disagreed and denied the motion to compel. "As the superior court observed, "the fact that the meeting occurs in a public place does not destroy the privilege, if no one hears the conversation." The Supreme Court concluded that LGC could have reasonably relied on the absence of public attendees to ask for the candid advice of counsel. Had members of the public been present, the conversation could have progressed differently. Thus, because no third persons were present at the meeting, LGC was not required to take any further precautions to ensure the communications were private. View "Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire v. The New Hampshire Local Government Center " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Lynne DiGaetano, Michael John DiGaetano, Christopher D. DiGaetano, Scott M. DiGaetano, and Shauna Arsenault, appealed a superior court order that granted the motion in limine of Defendant, John M. DiGaetano, to exclude parol evidence. Defendant cross-appealed a prior order of the same court that denied his motion to strike Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal. The matter arose from the distribution of trust proceeds from the death of the parties' parents-grandparents. Paragraph eleven of this trust provided that the trust “may be revoked in its entirety or amended from time to time by an instrument in writing executed by the said Donors jointly or by a surviving Donor.” The patriarch died in 2002, and the matriarch amended the trust in 2003 to establish Defendant as the sole trustee and beneficiary. Following his mother's death in 2006, Defendant sold the trust assets and collected the proceeds. Seeking to establish his right to the proceeds, Defendant petitioned the probate court who concluded that the 2003 amended trust was enforceable, and ruled in Defendant's favor. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they were entitled to a jury trial on the issues of whether the original trust was a contractual "common plan" and whether the matriarch breached that contract when she amended it. Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs' notice of appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court's order denying Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs' notice of appeal: The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiffs' contention that the original trust was a contract, the existence of which would be evidence to reform the family trust and to impose a constructive trust in their favor. Plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's order denying Defendant's motion and remanded the case to dismiss Plaintiffs' appeal. View "DiGaetano v. DiGaetano " on Justia Law

Petitioner Ronald Brownell appealed the final decree entered by the Plymouth Family Division in his divorce from Respondent Irene Brownell. Petitioner argued that the trial court erred when it: (1) considered his federal veterans’ disability benefits as income for alimony purposes; (2) treated any potential post-divorce distributions from his mother’s trust as marital property subject to distribution; (3) ordered him to pay the respondent $47,000 from his trust distributions, even though he had dissipated most of it before the divorce; and (4) found him in indirect civil contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony to the respondent and for violating the trial court’s anti-hypothecation order. Finding that the family division did not abuse its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the final decree. View "In the Matter of Ronald Brownell and Irene Brownell " on Justia Law

Respondent Bruce Raybeck appealed a ruling that he was required to continue paying alimony to Petitioner Judith Raybeck. The parties divorced in 2005 after a forty-two year marriage. The divorce decree obligated Respondent to pay Petitioner alimony for ten years, in yearly installments, but would cease should she "cohabitate[...] with an unrelated adult male." Approximately three months before the January 2010 alimony payment was due, Petitioner moved out of her Laconia house and rented it to reduce her expenses. She moved into the upper level of a single family home in Plymouth owned by Paul Sansoucie, a man she had met through an online dating service. Sansoucie lived on the lower level and did not charge Petitioner for rent. She did, however, pay about $300 per month for food and often cooked for him. They also shared living space on the middle level of the house. When the respondent learned that the petitioner lived with another man, he stopped paying alimony. In response, Petitioner asked the family division to enforce the alimony agreement and require the respondent to resume his support payments. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court: "important is the extent of the personal relationship, including evidence of an intimate connection, how the people hold themselves out to others. . . Here too, the age of the couple may be relevant in weighing this factor; for older people, a sexual component to intimacy may not be as significant as it would be for younger couples. In addition, the shared use and enjoyment of personal property is an indication of cohabitation, such as common use of household rooms, appliances, furniture, vehicles, and whether one person maintains personal items, such as toiletries or clothing, at the residence of the other." Because the trial court did not have the benefit of the standard the Court articulated here for determining whether the relationship between Petitioner and Sansoucie amounted to cohabitation, it vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Judith Raybeck and Bruce Raybeck " on Justia Law

Respondent Jeannie Dube, appealed the final decree in the divorce action initiated by Petitioner Eric Dube. She argued that the Derry Family Division erred when it granted Eric a fault-based divorce. In addition, she challenged the trial court’s division of the parties’ property and its denial of her alimony request. Further, she contested the validity of the stipulated parenting plan. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded: the record did not support the trial court’s implicit finding that Eric was “the innocent party” when testimony showed Eric committed adultery during the marriage; the record supported the trial court's finding that Jeannie did not need alimony; and the record supported the court's unequal division of the marital assets. The Court declined to address Jeannie's challenge to the parenting plan because she did not raise it at trial. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part, and affirmed in part the trial court's final decree. View "In the Matter of Eric J. Dube and Jeannie Dube " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Thomas Willey was convicted of one count of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial or in the alternative, for further curative instructions to the jury. He also argued that the trial court sentenced him based upon improper considerations. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, but vacated his sentence: "[b]ecause [the Court could not] conclude either that the trial court 'clearly gave no weight' to the improper factors [the Court] identified, or that it would have imposed the same sentence but for any improper factors that it may have considered, [the Court] vacate[d] the defendant's sentence and remand[ed] for resentencing." View "New Hampshire v. Willey" on Justia Law

Pro se Plaintiff Robert Suprenant appealed a superior court order that dismissed his claims against Defendant Deborah Mulcrone under the doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Defendant was the guardian ad litem for Plaintiff's son in a contested case between Plaintiff and the son's mother. Defendant was appointed to investigate how Plaintiff and his son's mother should divide parenting time and residential responsibility for their son. Defendant stated in her report that although it was "commendable" that Plaintiff had no criminal charges since 1994, his failure to disclose his prior charges was "troubling." Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging those statements in her report were negligently made and breached an implied contract with Plaintiff to observe "reasonable standards of care and fair dealing." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant was entitled to absolute immunity for her acts. Accordingly, the Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit. View " Suprenant v. Mulcrone " on Justia Law

Petitioner David Fischer appealed a superior court order on his motions for pretrial bail, claiming that the court delegated authority to Strafford County Community Corrections (SCCC), which is managed by the Respondent, Superintendent of the Strafford County House of Corrections, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The written order stated that bail was set at $50,000 cash "[t]o convert to PR if found accep[table] by SCCC – Whether Bail is Posted or Converted all conditions apply." A pretrial motion to amend bail was denied, stating from the bench "[the judge was] just not going to order [SCCC] to do something it is not inclined to do. I have the power, and I have the discretion to do that, but I'm not going to in this case. The bail remains as is." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the bail orders at issue here reflected "a cooperative accommodation among" the judicial and executive branches and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. View "Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Marc and Laurie Brown appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to Defendant Concord Group Insurance Company in their insurance coverage action. In 2005, Plaintiffs purchased a house from then-owner Michael Rogers. Two years later, they discovered water leaking into the house near a sliding glass door. They contacted Eugene Spencer, the person who built the house, to repair the problem. In 2009, Plaintiffs again observed water leaking into the house near the same sliding glass door. This time they contacted Daniel Lewis to repair the problem. Lewis later testified that damage was caused by leaks Spencer did not discover during his repair, but probably would have discovered had he removed all of the siding on the wall. The damage required extensive repair work. Concord Group insured Spencer. His policy did not cover "property damage" to his work "arising out of [his work] or any part of [his work]." Plaintiffs argued that the policy provided coverage because Spencer negligently repaired their house in 2007, and the damage in 2009 would not have occurred but for his negligence. Upon review of the policy in question, the Supreme Court concluded it was error for the trial court to grant Concord Group summary judgment because what caused the damage (either the 2003 or the 2007 work) was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the policy provided coverage in this case. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Concord Group Ins. Co. " on Justia Law