Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Salvatore Rabbia appealed a superior court order that ordered $37,000 held in escrow be dispersed to Intervenor Automotive Finance Corporation instead of to him. Plaintiff was a principal in the corporate Defendant Harvard Auto Sales (d/b/a "Hitcars.com"). The company was in the business of salvaging motor parts; Automotive Finance Corporation and Plaintiff were two of Harvard Motors' creditors. AFC financed Harvard's purchase of inventory. Plaintiff was involved in a long-standing dispute with Harvard. The issue before the Supreme Court invovled Plaintff's and AFC's competing claims to funds Harvard gave to their counsel to hold in escrow in the summer of 2008 while settlement discussions with Plaintiff were ongoing. Upon careful review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court concluded that a "transfer" occurred when the Court affirmed an earlier trial court decision requiring disbursement of the escrowed funds to Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff acquired both legal and equitable title to the escrowed funds, entitling him to take them free of any perfected security interest AFC may have had in them. The Court reversed the superior court decision with respect to release of the funds to AFC. The Court affirmed the superior court with respect to all other matters in this case. View "Rabbia v. Rocha" on Justia Law

Petitioner Premium Research Services appealed a superior court's dismissal of its petition brought under the state Right-to-Know Law for disclosure of documents relating to disbursements from the second injury fund. Petitioner sought information so that it could know whether a carrier reported reimbursement to the National Council on Compensation Insurers. If reimbursements were reported, then the Council would reduce an employer's insurance premium. Petitioner sought to monitor the reimbursement process to ensure employers were not being overcharged for workers' compensation insurance. Petitioner filed its petition against the Department of Labor for disclosure of the documents. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the documents sought were exempt from disclosure under the plain meaning of the RTK law. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's dismissal of Petitioner's petition. View "Premium Research Svcs. v. New Hampshire Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Appellant Anthony Hayes appealed a superior court order that denied his petition to enjoin a sheriff's sale and found a prejudgment attachment by Appellee Southern New Hampshire Medical Center (SNHMC or Hospital) valid and executable. In 2006, Appellant's wife Karen was admitted to the SNMHC for medical treatment stemming from alcoholism. SNHMC filed suit in superior court against Appellant for his wife's unpaid medical bills. At the same time, the hospital petitioned to attach a portion of the couple's real estate owned as a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. During the pendancy of the attachment proceedings, the Hayses divorced. Under the terms of their separation agreement, each was responsible for their own medical expenses not covered by insurance. Mrs. Hayes quitclaimed her interest in the real estate. Shortly thereafter, she died. SNHMC obtained a limited probate administration in order to proceed with the sheriff's sale of the properties. The trial court found that Mrs. Hayes' interests in the subject properties remained valid and that SNHMC was entitled to execute its judgment against them. On appeal, Appellant contended that, because Mrs. Hayes quitclaimed her interest in the property prior to entry of final judgment against her, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it failed to find that her death terminated SNHMC’s prejudgment attachment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that SNHMC’s prejudgment attachment was obtained and recorded during Mrs. Hayes' lifetime and while she held the property jointly with her husband. As such the hospital's judgment remained valid. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the hospital. View "Hayes v. So. New Hampshire Medical Ctr" on Justia Law

Respondents New Hampshire Department of Corrections and Liberty Mutual Insurance Copmany (Insurer) appealed the decision of the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (CAB) that Petitioner Michael Whitaker (Claimant) was entitled to ongoing temporary total disability indemnity benefits. Claimant first filed a workers’ compensation claim in January 2008, alleging that he suffered emotional injuries in 2007 because of harassment and retaliation at his DOC job. The insurer denied the claim on the ground that Claimant’s injuries were not causally related to his employment. In 2009, the CAB ruled in Claimant’s favor, awarding him benefits from the date he was deemed unable to work, through "at least" October 20, 2008, the date of the initial hearing before a department of labor hearing officer. The insurer did not appeal the CAB’s decision. In late 2009, Claimant sought to have his benefits increased to the higher temporary total disability rate when he was hospitalized for "[m]ajor depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, with psychotic features." The insurer denied this request on the ground that Claimant had failed to demonstrate that his hospitalization was related to his 2007 work injury. A department of labor hearing officer ruled in the insurer’s favor in January 2010; Claimant appealed to the CAB. The insurer argued that because Claimant had filed a claim with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights seeking damages for his allegedly wrongful discharge from the DOC, he waived his claim for increased benefits. The CAB was unpersuaded by Insurer's argument, and approved Claimant's claim. After unsuccessfully moving for reconsideration, Insurer appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon careful review of the CAB record, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding all of the issues the Insurer's raised on appeal unsupported by legal authority. View "Appeal of New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner Town of Newington appealed a superior court order that granted summary judgment to the State through the the Pease Development Authority (PDA) and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES). Before land from the former Pease Air Force Base was deeded to the PDA, the United States Air Force engaged in a series of environmental impact analyses required by federal law. Following several iterations of environmental documents and deed restrictions, PDA accepted title to the Pease AFB land in three title transfers between 1999 and 2005. Shortly thereafter, the Town began the process of designating prime wetlands within its borders pursuant to state law. Six wetlands were located within the former Pease base. DES initially "approved" the Town's request, but later clarified that it "did not purport to 'approve' the legality of the Town's designation of prime wetlands located within PDA boundaries, nor would the agency have statutory authority to do so." Several months later, as part of a proposed construction project on PDA land to expand an existing office building, an alteration of terrain permit application was filed with DES. The Town rejected, asserting that it involved fill within 100 feet of wetlands that the Town had designated as "prime" and, therefore, required a wetlands permit. DES disagreed. After the Wetlands Council dismissed its appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the Town filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in superior court. The trial court concluded that PDA was not required to comply with the Town’s prime wetlands designations and, therefore, granted PDA and DES’s motion for summary judgment. Upon careful consideration of the superior court records and the deeds of the wetlands in question, the Supreme Court concluded that the DES' reservation when first 'approving' the six wetlands within the PDA did not confer the Town with standing to challenge any subsequent development. As such, the Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment. View "Town of Newington v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Defendant New Hampshire Division for Children, Yought and Families (DCYF) appealed a superior court order that it pay Plaintiff Chase Home for Children over $3 million. The dispute concerned rates the DCYF paid to the Chase home for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 pursuant to Provider Service Agreements the home had with DCYF. Due to state budget cuts, DCYF notified its contracted service providers like Chase that it would be unable to increase rates. The service providers asked DCYF to reconsider, claiming that the then-current rates were inconsistent with the agency's own rules. A hearing panel established that DCYF underpaid the service providers. The providers requested the panel order DCYF to pay them, but the panel ruled it lacked authority to do so. The providers appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the legislature specifically authorized the courts to enter a monetary judgment against the State when it breaches a contract: "to hold otherwise would require [the Court] to ignore these legislative directives and to permit a State agency to disregard its contractual obligations. Such a result finds no support in New Hampshire law." The Court therefore affirmed the hearing panel's conclusion and ordered DCYF to pay the service providers for the underpayments. View "Chase Home for Children v. New Hampshire Div. for Children, Youth and Fam." on Justia Law

Defendants Robin Colburn and Ronald and Richard Tennant appealed a superior court order that denied their motion to dismiss this action by Plaintiffs Richard and Cheryl Fellows and Benjamin Bellerose. Plaintiffs were successors-in-interest to property once owned by Defendants' parents. The property was subject to a 1996 lead paint abatement order. Defendants' parents sold the property to Jesus and Eileen Guzman who were not aware of the abatement order when they sold the property to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then brought suit upon discovery of the abatement order. Defendants argued that the superior court lacked jurisdiction over them because despite being administrators of their parents' estate, none of the Defendants actually lived in New Hampshire. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs failed to plead facts suffiient to justify the court's exercise of in personam jurisdiction over Defendants as either successor trustees or beneficiaries. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient for the court to exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's judgment. View "Fellows v. Colburn" on Justia Law

Defendant Ivonne Hernandez was convicted by a jury for second degree murder, second degree assault and reckless conduct. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she made to the police.On the evening of May 1, 2008, a drunken dispute between Defendant and four others ended when Defendant "turned her car around and drove directly towards the group." At trial, one witness testified that Defendant then revved her engine and accelerated towards the group. One attempted to jump out of the way, but the car hit her knee, causing a minor injury. The car also struck and severely injured another. Defendant argued at trial that the statement she gave to police recounting her version of events was involuntary and should have been suppressed. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Defendant's statements were the product of a free and unconstrained choice. "Based upon this evidence, [the court could not] say that the trial court's determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's finding that Defendant’s statements were voluntary. View "New Hampshire v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Soto appealed his conviction for being an accomplice to first degree murder. Defendant's conviction arose out of the fatal shooting of Aaron Kay in 2007. A man named Bill threatened Roney White's young cousins with a knife at a 7-Eleven store close to Roney's home. In retaliation, Roney tried to run over Bill and his companions with his car. Bill and another person then attacked Roney with a baseball bat. Defendant and his brother Sergio, met up with Roney and several of his companions, smoked marijuana, and settled on a plan to find Roney’s attackers and confront them. After one of the group confirmed that Defendant had brought a gun, the six men set out to find Roney's attackers. A short time later, they found a group of people whom they suspected had been involved in Roney's attack gathered near a dumpster. After driving past the group once or twice, they parked their car around the corner and discussed who would do the shooting. They settled on Roney's cousin as the shooter. Defendant then wiped the gun with his shirt, racked the slide to cock it, and handed it to the would-be shooter who left with a mask on, and shot Kay in the leg and abdomen. The men drove away. Kay later died from his wounds. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider whether the defendant acted under an extreme mental or emotional disturbance caused by extreme provocation, thereby reducing his criminal liability from murder to manslaughter. The Supreme Court "never treated provocation manslaughter ...as a true 'defense' under the Criminal Code ...and we decline to do so today." The Court concluded that the undisputed facts culminating in Kar’s death revealed "no evidence upon which a provocation instruction was warranted." The Court concluded the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury, and upheld Defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Soto" on Justia Law

Defendant William Ploof appealed a superior court order that committed him to the custody of the state Department of Corrections as a sexually violent predator. He argued on appeal that on its face, the statute under which he was committed violated his right to procedural due process, the state constitution's separation of powers provision, and his right to equal protection. Following a seven-day trial, the jury unanimously found that Defendant was a sexually violent predator and the trial court entered an order committing him to the custody of the department of corrections for a period of five years. Upon careful review of the process by which the state commits persons as a sexually violent predator, the governing statute and the pertinent case law, the Supreme Court remained unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments, and affirmed the superior court order. View "New Hampshire v. Ploof " on Justia Law