Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1989, Richard Cormier conveyed property to CF Realty Trust by warranty deed, and CF Realty Trust recorded the conveyance in the registry of deeds shortly thereafter. In 1993, CF Realty Trust and Plaintiff C F Investments both filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Pursuant to a proposed plan of reorganization, CF Investments succeeded to all of CF Realty Trust's assets, including the property, and the bankruptcy court entered a final decree approving the proposed plan in 1995. However, C F Investments never recorded its interest in the Property in the registry of deeds. Notwithstanding the bankruptcy plan, CF Realty Trust continued to conduct real estate business after 1995. In 2002, Robert Fuller, acting as trustee of CF Realty Trust, conveyed the property to himself as an individual and duly recorded the transaction in the registry of deeds. He then borrowed $219,000, secured by a mortgage on the property, from First Eastern Mortgage Corporation, and First Eastern recorded its interest. First Eastern then assigned its interest to Defendant Option One Mortgage Corp, and Option One duly recorded. In 2008, counsel for CF Investments notified defendant Option One of its competing claim to the Property, alleging that Fuller had acquired title to it unlawfully and had no authority to borrow money against it. In June 2008, Defendant Wells Fargo notified CF Investments of its intent to conduct a foreclosure sale of the property because Fuller had defaulted on his promissory note. CF Investments brought this action in superior court to enjoin the foreclosure sale, arguing that CF Realty Trust did not own the property at the time of its purported conveyance, that such conveyance was therefore invalid, and that consequently Fuller could not lawfully have granted a mortgage to First Eastern. The trial court disagreed, concluding that First Eastern was protected as a bona fide purchaser without notice of CF Investments' claims. After a bench trial, the Superior Court ruled in favor of Option One and Wells Fargo, concluding that the claim of First Eastern had priority over CF Investments' claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "C F Investments, Inc. v. Option One Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

Respondent Hollis Education Association, NEA-New Hampshire, appealed a decision of the public employee labor relations board (PELRB) which sustained an unfair labor practice complaint filed by Petitioner Hollis School Board which ruled that speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists employed by the school district were not members of the bargaining unit represented by the Association. The recognition clause in the collective bargaining agreement defined members of the bargaining unit as "[c]ertified full-time teachers, librarians and guidance counsellors who actively teach at least 50% of their time in the Hollis School District and are employed by said district." The recognition clause did not specifically refer to speech-language pathologists or occupational therapists. Nonetheless, the Association argued that the term "certified teacher" was "broad enough to include speech-pathologists and occupational therapists." It maintains that "[s]ince both job titles teach and are certified, they should fall within . . . the recognition clause." Upon review, the Supreme Court fund that by its plain language, the term "certified full-time teachers" does not include speech-language pathologists or occupational therapists: "neither an employer nor a union can 'avoid the need to satisfy the statutory requisites for adding [a] position to the bargaining unit' by simply treating certain positions as though they were included within the bargaining unit." The Court affirmed the PELRB decision. View "Appeal of Hollis Education Association, NEA-New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Respondent Erica Blizzard appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) that suspended her boating privileges. Carrying two passengers, Respondent piloted a motorboat on Lake Winnipesaukee. There was almost no visibility due to dark and inclement weather conditions. As the respondent later told investigators, she was unable to see the bow of her boat. She was operating the boat at eighteen to twenty miles per hour, unsure of her location or depth, when the boat collided with an island. The collision killed one passenger and seriously injured the respondent and the second passenger. As a result of the collision, the respondent was charged with boating while intoxicated and negligent homicide. A jury found her guilty of negligent homicide, but not guilty of boating while intoxicated. Respondent argued on appeal: (1) whether DOS lacked the authority to suspend boat-operation privileges because it has failed to promulgate associated regulations; (2) whether RSA 270-E:17 delegated legislative authority in violation of Part I, Article 37 of the State Constitution; and (3) whether the hearing notice complied with Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution. Finding the DOS had the requisite authority to suspend Respondent's boating privileges, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision. View "Appeal of Erica Blizzard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Steven Ford appealed a superior court's order that dismissed his negligence claims against Defendants the Town of Windham and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT). In late 2008 the vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger was struck by another vehicle in Windham. A severe ice storm had caused a power outage that had rendered the street and crossing lights at the intersection where the accident occurred inoperable. Several hours before the accident, both the Town and DOT had received notice that the lights were inoperable because of the storm. The accident caused Plaintiff to suffer severe injuries. He sued for negligence. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they owed Plaintiff no duty to warn of any hazardous condition that might have existed because of the ice storm. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's negligence claims. View "Ford v. Town of Windham" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Jason and Jennifer Antosz appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Doree Allain. Defendant owned property in Epping. In early 2008 the Town's fire department was called to Defendant's house because of a fire caused by the home's hot water heater. Jason Antosz was a volunteer firefighter with the Epping Fire Department who responded to the call. As he arrived on the scene, he walked down the home's driveway which was covered with packed snow and ice. He slipped and fell and was seriously injured. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for negligence, alleging the driveway was in an unsafe and unreasonable condition. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the "Fireman's Rule." Finding that the Fireman's Rule only applied to paid firefighters, the Supreme Court overruled the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Antosz v. Allain " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal from the superior court that partially granted and partially denied the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Lakes Region Water Company and Thomas Mason (collectively LRWC). The question before the Court was whether the superior court erred in concluding that Defendants were not exempt from the Consumer Protection Act to the extent that they allegedly misrepresented that the water they provided was safe for use and consumption. Answering in the affirmative, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of partial summary judgment as to the claims of the plaintiffs Jo Anne Rainville, Carl Beher, Lisa Mullins d/b/a The Olde Village Store, and approximately fifty others, under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) which sought damages for alleged misrepresentations about the quality of water provided. View "Rainville v. Lakes Region Water Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Josephine Lamprey appealed a superior court order that dismissed her against Defendants, Britton Construction, Inc. (Britton), DeStefano Architects, PLLC f/k/a Lisa B. DeStefano (DeStefano) and Dave Sherwood, pursuant to the statutes of limitations and repose. Plaintiff hired the defendants to design and build her home. DeStefano was the architect; Britton was the general contractor; and Sherwood was the mason who installed the home’s extensive stonework, including a stone veneer, terrace and stone chimneys. Plaintiff began living in the house in November 2001, but never obtained a certificate of occupancy. Within one year, water damage appeared on the wood floors. In 2006, Plaintiff hired Sherwood to repair loose stones on her terrace. In 2010, when Plaintiff replaced her stone terrace with granite, the mason in charge of the replacement noticed problems with the home’s stonework requiring significant repairs. As a result, Plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging negligence and breaches of warranty in her home’s construction. Britton requested dismissal pursuant to the statute of limitations for personal actions. Sherwood moved to dismiss, arguing that the construction statute of repose also barred Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff responded by arguing, among other things, that the statutes should be tolled because Sherwood had fraudulently concealed her home’s masonry problems. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The trial court properly dismissed all claims against Destefano. Although the trial court properly dismissed the claims against Britton and Sherwood initially, "it unsustainably exercised its discretion by not permitting Plaintiff to amend her writ to add fraudulent concealment allegations related to the bent masonry ties that concealed defects in her home’s stone veneer. Plaintiff’s amended claims against Britton and Sherwood related to the stone veneer were allowed. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lamprey v. Britton Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent Norris Viviers appealed an order of the family division which ruled his obligation to pay alimony to Petitioner Karen Schaulin-Viviers could not be modified because the parties agreed to a lump-sum payment. Finding that certain aspects of the parties' agreement and conduct created an ambiguity as to whether the alimony awarded was alimony in gross or periodic alimony, the Supreme Court construed the alimony as being periodic and not lump sum. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Viviers " on Justia Law

Petitioner Donald Gentry appealed a superior court decision that denied his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The trial court held that Petitioner (an offender whose parole was revoked) was not entitled to receive credit against his ninety-day term of recommitment to prison imposed pursuant to RSA 651-A:19 for the period between his arrest and the revocation of his parole. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that RSA 651-A:19 did not permit the parole board to credit the time the petitioner spent in confinement between his arrest and revocation of his parole against his ninety-day recommitment period, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Gentry v. Warden, Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility " on Justia Law

Petitioner Lachlan MacLearn and Intervenor Simon Hutchings appealed a superior court order that denied their motion for summary judgment. Petitioner was driving his 2006 Prius when he was involved in an accident with Hutchings. At the time of the accident, Petitioner also owned a 2000 Audi A6 that was insured by Respondent Commerce Insurance Company. Hutchings sued Petitioner for damages from his injuries. Hutchings made a demand upon Commerce for defense and indemnification. Commerce denied the claim, stating that coverage was barred by the terms of the policy it held on Petitioner's Audi. Petitioner petitioned for a declaratory judgment that Commerce was obligated to defend and indemnify him against Hutchings' suit. The trial court granted Commerce's motion and denied Hutchings', finding the policy barred coverage. Upon review of the policy and the arguments submitted by the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, finding the policy did not cover Petitioner's use of the Prius, nor grant him indemnification from Commerce for the accident arising out of his use of it. View "MacLearn v. Commerce Ins. Co." on Justia Law