Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Christopher Ross appealed a circuit court order dismissing his petition for a fault-based divorce and the final divorce order from petitioner Danielle Ross. He argued that the trial court erred: (1) in granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss based upon the defense of recrimination; (2) in failing to award him more than half of the marital estate; and (3) in failing to retroactively modify temporary support orders based upon petitioner’s allegedly understated income. Because the Supreme Court held that a party’s actions after the divorce petition has been filed could be used as a basis for the defense of recrimination, and that respondent withdrew his request to modify the temporary support orders, the Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of Ross" on Justia Law

This case centered on defendants’ alleged entitlement to travel across several properties in Salem in order to access Route 28. Defendants owned the property located at 16 Garabedian Drive, and claimed to have a deeded right-of-way to travel from their property eastward, across State-owned railroad tracks and continuing across the southernmost section of two parcels of land owned by Cumberland Farms, Inc. and 392 South Broadway, LLC respectively. The Cumberland Farms property abutted the railroad on its western boundary and 392 South Broadway’s property to the southeast. 392 South Broadway’s property was bounded on the north and west by the Cumberland Farms property and Route 28 on the east. Travel across these properties is known as Cuomo Drive. Plaintiffs 412 South Broadway Realty, LLC and Salem Rockingham, LLC, which owned property located just to the south of Cuomo Drive, filed suit against defendants and Cumberland Farms. Defendants appealed multiple superior court orders ruling that their property was not benefited by a deeded right-of-way over several other properties and finding them liable for abuse of process. Third-party defendant, Emmett Horgan, Trustee of the FUN Trust (FUN Trust), cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that defendants had not committed slander of title and in calculating the damages award for the trust’s abuse of process claim. After review, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s judgment on FUN Trust’s abuse of process claim and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed. View "412 South Broadway Realty, LLC v. Wolters" on Justia Law

John Doe appealed a superior court ruling in favor of Elizabeth Canner. Canner requested access to records relating to Doe’s arrest and prosecution under the New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law. Prior to the filing of Canner’s Right-to-Know requests, Doe had filed a petition for annulment under RSA 651:5 (2016). While Canner’s request was pending, Doe’s annulment petition was granted. The trial court concluded that, notwithstanding the fact that Doe’s petition for annulment had been granted, records relating to Doe’s arrest and prosecution were not categorically exempt from public inspection under the Right-to-Know Law. This case presented an issue of first impression in New Hampshire for the New Hampshire Supreme Court: whether records maintained by arresting and prosecuting agencies pertaining to an annulled arrest and the related prosecution are categorically exempt from public inspection under the Right-to-Know Law. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the superior court's decision and affirmed. View "Grafton County Attorney's Office v. Canner" on Justia Law

Seventeen of the 20 plaintiffs to this case were Somali Bantu refugees who were resettled to the United States in 2004. Three of the plaintiffs were born in the United States to Somali Bantu refugees. Plaintiffs lived in the defendants’ apartments during 2005-2006, and those apartments were contaminated by lead paint, a known health hazard. Plaintiffs had elevated levels of lead in their blood. In their complaints, which were consolidated for discovery and trial, plaintiffs, through their parents, alleged that they were injured by their exposure to lead paint while living in defendants’ apartments. In this interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs challenged a superior court order granting the motion to exclude the expert testimony of Peter Isquith, Ph.D. After evaluating the 20 plaintiffs, Isquith, a clinical neuropsychologist, determined that 17 of them suffered from neurological deficits and opined that lead exposure was, more likely than not, a substantial factor in causing those deficits. The superior court excluded Isquith’s testimony based upon its determination that his testimony was not “the product of reliable principles and methods,” and its finding that he did not apply “the principles and methods reliably to the facts” of this case. The superior court certified a question to the Supreme Court: whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the expert's testimony. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court's order, and affirmed. View "Osman v. Lin" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault. Before trial, he filed a motion asking the trial court to order, among other things, “the State to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve all cell phone activity of [complainant] including voice mails, text messaging, e-mails, social media postings and photographs by making a mirror image of all cell phones utilized by [complainant].” Defendant also requested that the court order the State to “mak[e] immediate preservation and production requests of all service providers including, but not limited to cell phone[] carriers, Facebook and any other social media or communication provider with which [the complainant] had an account.” The State objected, arguing, among other things, that “[d]efendants generally do not have the legal authority to direct an investigation or demand that the State investigate, obtain, and preserve specific evidence.” Defendant responded in his motion that he was “not seeking discovery . . . but rather the preservation of” the records and communications. At the time the defendant filed his motion, the State did not possess any of the records or communications that defendant was seeking. The trial court granted defendant's proposed order, which compelled the State to obtain and produce the records for in camera inspection. The State appealed when its motion for reconsideration was denied. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that there were other procedural means through which defendant could obtain the records, and that the trial court did not have authority to grant the motion to compel them as it did. View "Petition of State of New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Long appealed a superior court order imposing a portion of his previously-suspended sentences based on findings that he violated the "no-contact" provision of those sentences by filing a petition to establish a parenting plan for his and the victim's child. Long had kidnapped the victim who had been at the time, pregnant with Long's child. Long pled guilty to six criminal charges for which prison sentences were imposed. All sentences included the provision. In August 2014, Long filed a petition in the circuit court to establish a parenting plan for his and the victim’s child. In the petition, Long wanted a "[m]ediator [a]ppointed to help [him and the victim] to create a Parenting Plan." Long also averred that he had had no contact with the child and that there was "currently a restraining order in full effect." He requested that the court send the victim “[a]ll copies of Motions, Notification[s], [and] Financial Affidavits” on his behalf. He did not mention the no-contact provision of his sentences. According to Long (and apparently not disputed by the State), the victim accepted service of the petition at the courthouse, after having been contacted by the court. Thereafter, she filed a petition to terminate the defendant’s parental rights. Thereafter, the State moved to impose portions of Long's suspended sentences. The trial court found that the no-contact provisions were clear and unambiguous and that by filing the parenting petition, Long willfully violated them. Accordingly, the trial court granted the State's motion. The Supreme Court reversed: "On the surface, the disposition of this case might appear straightforward. [. . .] But we cannot simply say 'end of story' and resolve the case on this basis because there are broader constitutional principles at stake. Here, the sentencing order did not give the defendant fair warning that filing the parenting petition constituted 'contact' such that his suspended sentences could be imposed." The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Long" on Justia Law

Respondent Coralee Beal appealed a circuit court order awarding petitioner Deborah Munson what Beal contended to be eighty-eight percent of the value of the marital estate. The court awarded Beal the remaining twelve percent and alimony. Beal argued that the circuit court erred by failing to consider the parties’ approximately fifteen-year period of premarital cohabitation when it determined the provisions of the decree. After review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court could consider premarital cohabitation when formulating an equitable distribution of marital property. Accordingly, the Court vacated both the property distribution and alimony award and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Munson and Beal" on Justia Law

Appellant Tammy Cole was the biological grandmother of N.B. and J.B. In May 2012, DCYF filed a petition alleging that N.B. and J.B. had been neglected by their biological parents. The court appointed CASA to serve as the children’s guardian ad litem. After the court made a finding of neglect and awarded DCYF legal custody, DCYF removed N.B. and J.B. from their parents’ home and placed them in Cole’s physical custody. In November 2013, the biological parents sexually abused N.B. and J.B. during an unsupervised visit. The court subsequently terminated the biological parents’ parental rights, and the abuse and neglect case was closed. In May 2014, Cole and her husband adopted the children. In July, Cole filed a motion in the circuit court seeking to copy the court’s records relating to the children’s abuse and neglect case. Cole also notified DCYF and CASA that N.B. and J.B. had potential negligence claims against these agencies based upon the abuse that occurred while the children were in the legal custody of DCYF. DCYF and CASA objected to Cole’s motion and each requested a protective order. DCYF and CASA argued that Cole was not entitled to make a copy of the court record, and CASA requested that the court grant a protective order limiting Cole’s inspection of the records to review at the courthouse and limiting disclosure of the court file. After a hearing, the court granted Cole’s motion to copy records and also granted CASA’s request for a protective order, in part. Cole only appealed the part of the circuit court's order required that any future case be filed as confidential and the pleadings filed under seal. She argued that this constituted a prior restraint on free speech that violated her rights under the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions because it was neither narrowly tailored nor did it serve a compelling State interest. Further, she asserted that it impermissibly placed the burden upon her, instead of on the parties seeking nondisclosure, and that it unfairly restricted her disclosure while allowing others to disclose the same information. Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that the court’s ruling constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, it reversed this part of the order. View "In re N.B." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the New Hampshire Supreme Court's review called for the Court to determine the constitutionality of New Hampshire Administrative Rules, He-W 654.04(c). The rule required DHHS to include a child’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in the calculation of a family’s eligibility for benefits under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), as administered by the State’s Financial Assistance to Needy Families program (FANF). Plaintiffs Carrie Hendrick and Jamie Birmingham were mothers whose children received SSI and FANF benefits, and whose benefits were ultimately cut by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their children, seeking a declaratory judgment that DHHS’s “inclusion of children’s SSI in FANF assistance group income is unlawful and void” pursuant to applicable federal law. In addition, plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Rule He-W 654.04 “is invalid because it impairs [their] legal rights.” Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction enjoining DHHS from including children’s SSI in FANF assistance group income and an award of attorney’s fees “because this litigation will result in a substantial benefit to the public.” After requesting that the Solicitor General of the United States file an amicus brief in this matter, and after reviewing that brief, the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the Supremacy Clause did not permit the State to redirect federal benefits as required by Rule He-W 654.04(c). The rule, by counting a disabled child’s SSI benefits as income available to the child’s “assistance group,” treated the child’s benefits as a source of income for the entire household. The rule, thereby, reduced a household’s TANF benefit by one dollar for every dollar in SSI that was received by a disabled child in the household. Because the rule “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” the New Hampshire Court held that Rule He-W 654.04(c) was preempted by federal law and, thus, invalid to the extent that it required inclusion of children’s SSI as income to the TANF assistance group for the purpose of determining eligibility for TANF benefits. View "Hendrick v. New Hampshire Dept. of Health & Human Svcs." on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Gay was convicted by jury of second degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery. He appealed the convictions, arguing the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly unconstitutional search and seizure. Furthermore, he argued that the Trial Court erred in excluding evidence of an “alternative perpetrator” and in allowing the State’s expert witness to testify regarding certain footwear impressions. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Gay" on Justia Law