Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondents Marco Dorfsman and the University of New Hampshire Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (Union), appealed a superior court order granting the petition for declaratory relief filed by petitioners the University System of New Hampshire Board of Trustees and the University of New Hampshire (collectively, UNH). The superior court vacated the arbitrator’s decision that UNH had violated its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Union by terminating Dorfsman’s employment for engaging in an act of “moral turpitude.” Dorfsman was an Associate Professor and the Chair of the Language, Literature, and Culture Department at UNH. In December of that year, he intentionally lowered the evaluations that students had given a certain lecturer by erasing markings on the evaluations; if the highest ranking had been given, he entered a different and lower rating. In May 2013, UNH terminated Dorfsman’s employment for this conduct, which UNH determined constituted an act of “moral turpitude” within the meaning of the CBA. Dorfsman and the Union grieved his termination, and, pursuant to the CBA, the parties submitted to binding arbitration to resolve that grievance. On appeal, respondents argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to review the arbitrator’s decision, the issues were not ripe for judicial review, and the arbitrator did not exceed his authority when he found that UNH lacked just cause to terminate Dorfsman’s employment. Respondents did not challenge the arbitrator’s finding that Dorfsman’s conduct constituted “moral turpitude” within the meaning of the CBA. Finding no reversible error in the superior court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "University System of New Hampshire Board of Trustees v. Dorfsman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Farrelly appealed a superior court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Concord police officers Walter Carroll and Eric Pichler and the City of Concord (city), on grounds that defendants were entitled to official and vicarious immunity. Plaintiff was charged with harassing his ex-girlfriend. Carroll and Pichler drafted the criminal complaint against the plaintiff. Ultimately, the charges against plaintiff were dropped. Plaintiff brought claims against the defendants for: (1) malicious prosecution (count I); (2) false imprisonment (count II); (3) violation of his rights of free speech and against unreasonable searches and seizures under the New Hampshire Constitution (count III); and (4) negligence (count IV). The court rejected the defendants’ arguments based upon RSA 594:13 and RSA 594:10, and found that the warrantless arrest was unlawful. However, the court ruled that the defendants were immune from suit. The court granted summary judgment to the city on count IV (negligence) because it concluded that the exception to municipal immunity found in RSA 507-B:2 (2010) does not apply, as the claim asserted therein has no nexus to cars or premises. This case presented a question of whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision in "Everitt v. Gen. Elec. Co.," (156 N.H. 202 (2007)) applied to intentional torts. The Court concluded that it did, and that the language set forth in "Huckins v. McSweeney," (166 N.H. 176 (2014)) had to be interpreted consistently with the standard articulated in Everitt. Although the Court found this to be a close case, the Court ultimately concluded that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to defendants, and accordingly, affirmed. View "Farrelly v. City of Concord" on Justia Law

Judith Mortner, temporary administrator of the estate of respondent Theodore Mortner (Husband), appealed, and petitioner, Lynn Mortner (Wife), cross-appealed a circuit court order abating the Wife’s divorce action and vacating its prior final divorce decree. Husband and Wife were married in July 1987. In October 2013, Wife filed a petition for divorce when she was 70 years old and still working and Husband was approximately 90 years old and still working. In July 2014, Husband, Wife, and their counsel signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) purporting to settle the divorce action. The MOU was filed with the court in September with a cover letter reminding the court that the divorce decree was not to issue until counsel notified the court that it could issue. On October 29, Husband’s counsel hand-delivered to the court a letter advising that the decree could now issue. On October 30, the court signed an order that decreed the parties divorced on the ground of irreconcilable differences, approved the MOU, and incorporated it as part of the divorce decree. Unbeknownst to the court, Husband died on either one or two days prior to its order. Also unbeknownst to the court, the parties on October 29, through their counsel, entered into an amendment to their proposed final decree of divorce and their MOU. Wife subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the issuance of the divorce decree, requesting the court to vacate the decree on the ground that, before the court had signed its October 30 order, Husband had died. In its appeal, the Estate argued that the trial court erred by abating the divorce action. In her cross-appeal, Wife argued that the Estate lacked standing to contest the abatement and that its appeal should therefore be dismissed. She also argued that the trial court erred when it allowed Husband’s counsel to appear at the hearing on her motion to abate the divorce. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "In the Matter of Lynn Mortner and Theodore Mortner" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Craig Sanborn on two counts each of manslaughter and negligent homicide as the result of an explosion that killed two employees at his gunpowder factory. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms in the state prison on the manslaughter convictions only. On appeal, defendant challenged, among other things, the manner in which the jury was selected, the sufficiency of the evidence, the verdict, and the sentences. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Sanborn" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Christopher Palermo on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, one count of criminal trespass, and two counts of simple assault. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by: (1) ruling that the State sufficiently authenticated certain Facebook messages; (2) admitting evidence of his prior incarceration, parole status, and civil lawsuit against the New Hampshire State Prison; and (3) allowing the State to introduce a photograph of him. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Hampshire v. Palermo" on Justia Law

Respondents Mesiti Development, Inc., JVL Construction Company, Inc., and Brook Hollow Corporation, appealed a superior court order dismissing their counterclaims against petitioner Town of Londonderry. In 2012, the Town filed a bill of interpleader to determine whether $264,517.02 in surplus impact fees collected under the Town’s impact fee ordinance should have been refunded to the developers who paid the impact fees or to the current owners of the properties for which the fees had been paid. Although the Town’s impact fee ordinance specifies that the current owners are entitled to the refunds, the Town sought to confirm that the ordinance is consistent with the impact fee statute. The bill listed seventeen properties and their respective impact fee payors and current owners. Additional parties intervened thereafter. Several parties, including the respondents, moved to add counterclaims alleging, among other things: (1) violations of RSA 674:21, V; (2) negligence; (3) violation of fiduciary duties owed to impact fee payors; (4) violation of the public trust in government; and (5) violation of the municipal budget law. The Town filed a motion to dismiss these counterclaims, which the trial court granted. This appeal followed. Finding no reversible error in the order dismissing these claims, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Town of Londonderry v. Mesiti Development, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner Terrie Harman appealed a circuit court order denying her and her ex-husband Thomas McCarron's request to un-do their divorce. The parties were married in 1989. In July 2014, they were granted an uncontested decree of divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences that caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage. In March 2015, they jointly filed a “Petition to Change Court Order,” stating that they have “reconciled and therefore request the [trial court] to approve the attached agreement to vacate the July 1, 2014 divorce decree.” The attached agreement, signed by both parties, stated that they “agree that the . . . 2014 divorce decree shall be vacated in full and in all respects.” The trial court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the petitioner argues that because New Hampshire courts “have authority to set aside, vacate, modify or amend their orders,” and have vacated final divorce decrees upon the request of one of the parties, the trial court erred in ruling that it had no authority to vacate the parties’ divorce decree. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that in the absence of a statute authorizing the trial court to vacate a final divorce decree on the ground of the parties’ reconciliation, the trial court did not err in concluding that it had no such authority. View "In the Matter of Harman & McCarron" on Justia Law

Steven Cohen met John Raymond when Raymond began dating Cohen’s stepdaughter, Molly, whom Raymond eventually married. Cohen owned a successful scrap metal company and offered Raymond a job. Cohen knew a broker and private wealth manager at Merrill Lynch, and Cohen testified that he wanted to help Raymond learn about investment through that broker. To set up an investment account, Merrill Lynch required a minimum deposit of $250,000. Cohen deposited this amount into an account in Raymond’s name, later testifying at trial that he considered the money to be “seed money” for a business that he planned to open with Raymond. Although Raymond testified that he never intended to go into business with Cohen, the trial court found that “the parties had decided to enter the recycling business together.” Raymond and Molly decided to divorce. Raymond then withdrew $50,000 from the Merrill Lynch account, which he used for “personal purposes.” Upon learning of the divorce and withdrawal, Cohen demanded that Raymond repay him the $250,000, and then sued Raymond in superior court. Cohen claimed that the money was a loan, and that he was entitled to repayment with interest at 5% or 6%. In the alternative, Cohen claimed that Raymond had been unjustly enriched, and that he was entitled to restitution. In his argument on unjust enrichment, Cohen suggested, for the first time, that the $250,000 was a conditional gift. Cohen, appealed the trial court’s ruling that the $250,000 deposited into the investment account was an unconditional gift. Cohen argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by: (1) finding that the $250,000 was an unconditional gift, rather than a loan or a conditional gift; and (2) presuming that the $250,000 was a gift, thereby placing the burden on Cohen to show that it was not a gift. The New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated and remanded: Raymond was Cohen’s son-in-law, thus, the gift presumption did not apply, and the burden should have been on Raymond to prove that Cohen intended to give him the $250,000 as a gift. View "Cohen v. Raymond" on Justia Law

This appeal and cross-appeal arose out of a civil action by plaintiffs, Jeffrey Frost, Frost Family, LLC (Frost Family), and Chretien/Tillinghast, LLC (Chretien), against Michael Delaney, individually and as former attorney general, and multiple other former and current State officials, for their actions in the investigation and prosecution of Frost for alleged violations of RSA chapter 397-A. Plaintiffs appealed only orders of the Superior Court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against Kathleen Sheehan (bank examiner for the New Hampshire Banking Department) on the ground that she was entitled to qualified immunity, and dismissing their negligent supervision claims against Peter Hildreth (former commissioner of the Department) and Maryam Desfosses (Department hearings examiner) on the ground that they were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Defendants the State of New Hampshire, the Department, and Sheehan cross-appealed. Chretien and Frost Family were New Hampshire limited liability companies organized for the purpose of real estate acquisition, holding, and development. Frost was a member and designated manager of Chretien and a member of Frost Family. Chretien sold one of its properties to Robert Recio and his housemate in a seller-financed real estate transaction. In late December 2009, Recio filed a complaint against Chretien with the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office alleging, among other things, that plaintiffs had fraudulently induced him to enter into the sale. The complaint was forwarded to the Department, which assigned investigation of the complaint to Sheehan. Sheehan, Gorham, and Manchester Police Department officials drafted an application for a warrant to search Frost’s residence, which also served as the business address for Chretien, for evidence that the plaintiffs had participated in unlicensed mortgage lending in violation of RSA chapter 397-A. The supporting affidavit averred that Frost, as a member of Chretien, “had acted as a Mortgage Banker” with regard to the conduct complained of in Recio’s complaint. Frost was arrested and charged with four class A misdemeanors alleging violations of RSA chapter 397-A. The district court later granted Frost’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search. The court found that Sheehan misrepresented that Chretien was listed as the “Mortgage Banker” in the Recio transaction and that her misrepresentation was material. The court, therefore, determined that the warrant application lacked probable cause. Thereafter, the court granted Frost’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges. Upon review of the Superior Court record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error as to the grant of summary judgment, and affirmed. View "Frost v. Delaney" on Justia Law

Defendant Marianne King was convicted by jury on one count of theft by unauthorized taking. At trial, defendant argued that it was error to instruct the jury that “if there is a conflict between witnesses who offer direct evidence concerning certain facts, you must decide which witness to believe.” She argued that this instruction, which, for the purposes of this appeal (“the Germain direct-evidence instruction”), was “misleading” because it conflicted with the State’s burden to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court overruled defendant’s objection to the instruction. After review, the Supreme Court made a slight adjustment to the wording of the instruction that the trial court repeated verbatim, but otherwise affirmed the judgment and conviction. View "New Hampshire v. King" on Justia Law