Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Winecellar Farm ("Winecellar") appealed a superior court order that found it was not entitled to: (1) a decree pro confesso awarding it specific performance to purchase the Bedard Farm ("Bedard"); (2) specific performance to purchase the farm under the part performance doctrine; and (3) continued haying in perpetuity under a lease agreement. Craig and Jennifer Rief purchased Winecellar, a working farm adjacent to the Bedard Farm. Bedard was owned by two siblings who until 2006, had lived there all their lives. The Riefs had enjoyed a close, friendly relationship with the Bedards until the Bedards died in 2006. The Riefs informed the Bedards on multiple occasions of their interest in buying the Bedard Farm when the Bedards were ready to sell. Until that time, the Riefs were content with farming the two properties together. In 2004, the Riefs and the Bedards signed a "memorandum of understanding" to harvest hay. In exchange, Winecellar/Riefs would maintain certain access ways and roadways to a shared driveway. In 2004, the Riefs wanted to lease the Bedard land to raise a small herd of buffalo to which the Bedards declined. In January 2006, the Bedards acquiesced to the Riefs' proposal to lease the land for buffalo. They drafted a "letter of understanding" for which the Riefs would lease the land, and later be given the opportunity to purchase the land should the Bedards sell. When the Bedards died, the land passed to their family. The Riefs filed a preliminary injunction in an attempt to preclude the Bedards' estate from evicting its buffalo and removing fencing equipment maintained on two leased pastures. Although the Bedard heirs filed responses in the case, their answer was untimely. The Riefs moved for a decree pro confesso for the right to purchase the Bedard land. The trial court denied the motion, but ordered a voluntary nonsuit as to the Bedard estate. On appeal, the Riefs argued that the sum of the various memoranda/letters of understanding constituted contracts for which specific performance was the only remedy. According to the Riefs, the monthly lease payments were in consideration for the right to purchase the land. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the record adequately supported the trial court's decisions to deny the Riefs specific performance for the Bedard Farm. Additionally, the Court found that the haying arrangement between the parties was not sufficient to constitute an "interest in land" consistent with "the ultimate intent that Winecellar Farm would own the Bedard Farm." As such, the Court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "Winecellar Farm, Inc. v. Hibbard" on Justia Law

The Appellants, maternal grandparents of “Athena D.,” appealed an order of the probate court that dismissed their petition for grandparent visitation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied their motion to stay the adoption of Athena while they pursued their petition for visitation and denied their request to order the child’s adoptive parents to allow their continued visitation. The Division for Children, Youth and Families initial plan was for the grandparents to adopt Athena; however, for various reasons, they withdrew from consideration. The court then found that it was in the best interest of Athena to deny the grandparents’ petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined the probate court indeed lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear their appeal. The Court found that the probate court’s conclusion to place the child with her eventual adoptive family was not an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the probate court’s decision. View "In Re Athena D." on Justia Law

Petitioner Harold French appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Board of Auctioneers (Board) that sanctioned him for submitting a fictitious bid at an auction. In 2009, Petitioner attended an auction run by another auctioneer and registered as a bidder under his own name. Of the items for sale, Petitioner asked the auctioneer about a particular painting that had a set reserve price of $10,000. When the bid reached $9,000, Petitioner bid $9,500. He later testified before the Board that he did not intend to purchase the painting, but sought to protect the reserve and ensure the painting was sold. No one else bid on the painting. The owner believed he had waived the reserve when he had gestured to the auctioneer following Petitioner’s bid. The owner subsequently requested payment for the painting from Petitioner. However, the auctioneer told the owner that the painting did not sell because the reserve was not met. The owner filed a complaint with the Board, and the Board subsequently issued its sanction against Petitioner. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidence presented against Petitioner supported the Board’s findings and sanction. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision. View "Appeal of Harold French" on Justia Law

Defendant Alicia Prentice appealed a district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff Phyllis Buatti. Defendant rented an apartment from Defendant. In September 2010, Defendant was served with a demand for rent alleging that the rent was three months in arrears. Subsequently, Defendant was served with a “notice to quit” requiring her to vacate the premises unless the rent was paid. Defendant’s argument on appeal to the Supreme Court was that the demand for rent exceeded the amount of back rent that was actually owed. Upon review, the Court found that the demand for rent exceeded the amount on the landlord’s "notice to quit." The trial court specifically found that neither party was able to prove the amount of the arrearage — the court simply found that an unspecified amount of rent had not been paid as required. The Supreme Court held that because the Plaintiff did not prove the actual amount in arrearage, the judgment in her favor should be reversed. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Buatti v. Prentice" on Justia Law

Respondents North of the Border Tobacco, LLC (Tobacco) and Roll Your Own, LLC (RYO) appealed decisions of the Superior Court that enjoined them from allowing customers to use on-site cigarette-making machines to make rolled cigarettes with loose tobacco unless they make required escrow payments as required by law. An escrow fund was set up by the state to share the burden from damages for smoking-related health care costs. Respondents own tobacco shops that sell various tobacco products. At some point, for a rental fee, cigarette-making machines were installed for on-site customer use. The State filed suit in 2009 and sought an injunction against Respondents to stop selling or rolling cigarettes until they paid into the fund. Tobacco denied that it manufactured cigarettes and argued that it did not have to contribute to the fund. The trial court disagreed and issued the injunction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to issue the injunction against Tobacco. However, the Court vacated the trial court's decision against RYO, holding that a preliminary injunction was premature prior to resolving several constitutional issues pertaining to RYO's business operations. Accordingly, the Court affirmed part, reversed part of the trial court's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. North of the Border Tobacco, LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent "Rebecca P." appealed an order of the family court that awarded guardianship of her son "Nicholas P." to her son's half-brother "Jonathan P." Nicholas' parents, Rebecca and "Martin P." had marital difficulties, and in May 2007, Rebecca left for South Carolina, taking her teenaged daughter with her. Rebecca left a note to Martin promising to return to New Hampshire within a month, but she never did. Martin initiated divorce proceedings in 2009, but he died suddenly before the divorce was final. Rebecca unsuccessfully sought ex parte approval in divorce court to take Nicholas with her to South Carolina. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Rebecca argued that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding eighteen-year-old Jonathan custody of his younger half-brother. The Supreme Court noted that Rebecca did not provide a record in support of her appeal. Absent a transcript of the family court's hearing, the Supreme Court assumed that the evidence was sufficient to support its decision. With no errors of law otherwise, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to award custody to the half-brother. View "In Re Guardianship of Nicholas P." on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant Peter Eaton was convicted on multiple sexual assault charges and for indecent exposure. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred when it denied his pre-trial motions for in-camera review of the victim's counseling records, for production of records from the police department and by failing to dismiss his case for lack of a "speedy trial." Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did err when it declined to review the victim's counseling records. The Court reversed the trial court's holding with respect to the review of the counseling records, but affirmed the trial court with respect to all of Defendant's other motions. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Eaton" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant Ryan LaPlaca pled true to a probation violation. As a result, he was sentenced to two-and-one-half to five years in the state prison, with five years suspended. As a condition of his sentence, Defendant agreed to participate in a drug court sentencing program. Defendant waived his rights to any and all subsequent hearings as a condition of his participation in the program. Furthermore, any violation of the terms of the program would result in sanctions. The State moved to impose Defendant's suspended sentence when he pled true to the probation violation. The trial court granted the State's motion without an additional hearing, citing the conditions of Defendant's participation in the drug court program. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by refusing to hold a hearing prior to issuing his sentence. On reversing the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court found that "it would subvert the requirements of due process to uphold the defendant's prospective waiver of his right to a hearing . . .[w]hen the defendant faces the potential imposition of a full sentence of incarceration." Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. LaPlaca" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant Andre Rivera was convicted as an accomplice to reckless second-degree murder. In 2007, he and four others discussed robbing a local drug dealer. The group assailed the dealer, and when the dealer fought back, one of the five shot the dealer to death. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss his indictment for lack of proof that he "acted with the purpose to promote or facilitate the specific actus reus of the principal offense" which was the murder of the drug dealer. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "New Hampshire v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Petitioners Peter Gordon and the Peter Gordon Revocable Trust of 1999 own six oceanfront properties adjacent to and at the end of a road in the Town of Rye. Petitioners unsuccessfully appealed an order from the Town Board of Selectmen that a portion of the road had become public by prescription. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioners argued that the Board’s conclusion was wrong. Central to the Board's conclusion was Petitioner's 1997 request to remove snow from the road. The Board reasoned that if the road was private, the Town would have had no duty to remove the snow. Upon consideration of matter, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented at the Board hearing was insufficient to declare the road a public road by prescription. The Court vacated the Board's decision, and remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings. View "Gordon v. Town of Rye " on Justia Law