Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Tariq Zubhuza was convicted by jury of criminal restraint, and criminal threatening with a firearm all connected with his involvement with a home invasion. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss those charges. Finding the evidence sufficient to support those convictions, and finding no reversible error in the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Zubhuza" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Lucien Vincent appealed a Circuit Court's judgment in favor of defendant Davina MacLean on his small claim complaint against her. In late January 2012, while incarcerated at the New Hampshire State Prison, plaintiff filed a small claim complaint against the defendant, his former girlfriend, seeking to recover seven thousand dollars for "[i]dentity theft, personal earnings and [b]enefits." He argued on appeal that the trial court erred by disregarding "overwhelming" evidence in his favor and failing to hold the defendant liable and by denying his motion to appear in person at the hearing on the merits, which he alleges violated his right to due process. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Vincent v. MacLean" on Justia Law

Defendant Thomas Bulcroft was charged with kidnapping and rape. The trial court accepted his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to New Hampshire Hospital for life, unless or until earlier discharged by court order. Defendant was discharged from the hospital in 1979. In late 2012, defendant filed a petition seeking to have his arrest and indictment record annulled because he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same as a finding of "not guilty" for purposes of RSA 651:5, II, and, therefore, the defendant is not entitled to have his record annulled. This presented an issue of first impression to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Agreeing with the trial court's reasoning, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "New Hampshire v. Bulcroft" on Justia Law

The parties married in 1988. In 2010, petitioner Cheryl Serodio filed for divorce. In October 2011, respondent Arthur Perkins moved to have a prenuptial agreement enforced. The copy of the agreement accompanying respondent's motion was signed only by him, though he alleged both parties signed it, and petitioner kept the original. In his motion, respondent claimed petitioner was unable to locate the original, and that he possessed a copy to be admitted as evidence. Petitioner objected, stating she did not recall signing the agreement, and that she never held an original signed document. Petitioner moved to dismiss respondent's motion to enforce, and the trial court granted it. On appeal, the respondent argues "[t]hat the trial court overlooked the standard of review for a motion to dismiss when it failed to assume the truth of the facts alleged by the [respondent], including the truth of the allegation that a written, executed [prenuptial] agreement was entered into by the Parties." The respondent also argues that the trial court erred because the threshold issue is whether the signed Agreement, in fact, had existed, not, as the trial court ruled, whether the signed Agreement presently exists. The petitioner responds that, since the respondent did not produce a prenuptial agreement signed by the petitioner, the trial court properly concluded that it had no statutory authority to enforce the terms of the Agreement. The Supreme Court observed, "petitioner's arguments regarding the enforcement of an oral or unsigned prenuptial agreement focus on the wrong issue. The respondent is not requesting that the trial court enforce an oral or unsigned agreement; rather, he is seeking to enforce the terms of a written, signed prenuptial agreement, notwithstanding the fact that neither a signed original nor a copy thereof has been produced in court. Accordingly, we turn to the question before us: whether the factual allegations in the respondent's pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery." Respondent's motion to enforce the Agreement alleged that a written prenuptial agreement existed, and that both parties signed it. Assuming the truth of the respondent's allegations, the Court concluded that the allegations in the respondent's motion are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery, and as such, reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Serodio & Perkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Autofair 1477, L.P. (d/b/a Autofair Honda) appealed a Superior Court order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to defendant, American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (AHM), on plaintiff's petition for attorney's fees. In November 2010, AHM performed a warranty audit at Autofair, after which it proposed $45,733.02 of chargebacks and a potential escrow reversal of $54,571.17 for claimed warranty work that deviated from AHM's policies and procedures. AHM did not debit Autofair's account for these amounts. Autofair contested the escrow reversal and $30,001.51 of the proposed chargebacks. After review, AHM reduced the amount of the proposed chargebacks to $43,957.94. In February 2011, Autofair filed a protest with the New Hampshire Motor Vehicle Industry Board pursuant to the New Hampshire Dealership Act. Even though AHM had neither debited Autofair's account nor held any disputed funds in escrow, Autofair specifically requested a "finding and ruling that the warranty audit charge backs and the [proposed] escrow violate[d] RSA 357-C:4 and RSA 357-C:5, that the audit charge backs be reversed, and the escrow funds released." Prior to a final hearing before the Board, the parties had ongoing discussions and reduced the disputed amount to $29,729.92, and Autofair withdrew its request for relief regarding the proposed escrow. Following a hearing, the Board affirmatively ruled on whether Autofair had reasonably substantiated 123 claims still at issue, and thus whether AHM was entitled to charge back the amounts associated with each claim. In total, the Board determined that AHM was entitled to charge back claims totaling $1,032.13, but not the remaining $28,697.79 of disputed claims. The Board also stated that because "Honda has paid the claims, and not held the funds in escrow, the request in the protest to find a statutory violation due to same is moot." Finally, the Board ordered Autofair to pay $1,032.13 to AHM, with interest. In January 2012, Autofair filed a petition for attorney's fees and costs with the trial court pursuant to RSA 357-C:12, X (2009). Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Autofair's motion and granted AHM's cross-motion. It based its ruling upon the fact that the Board had not found that AHM committed a violation of the Dealership Act because it had not charged back Autofair, and the court's conclusion that an award of fees would not be consistent with the public policy behind the Dealership Act. This appeal followed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Autofair 1477, L.P. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1993, John Houlahan and his wife, Theresa, established the "Theresa M. Houlahan Revocable Trust of 1993" containing the marital home. John was named successor trustee of, and granted certain powers over, the Theresa Trust. Upon the deaths of Theresa and John, the real property was to be distributed to their son, petitioner Thomas Houlahan. Theresa died in 1996. In 1997, John established the "John F. Houlahan 1997 Revocable Trust." John named his daughter (respondent) as successor trustee. In November 2002, John conveyed the real property by deed to himself, as trustee of the John Trust. John died in 2009. Under the terms of the John Trust, "[a]ny interest this trust may have in any real estate" was to be distributed in equal shares to four of his children: petitioner, respondent, John F. Houlahan, Jr., and Terrence B. Houlahan. In 2011, petitioner filed a "Petition for Injunction" seeking, among other things, an order that the property be returned to the Theresa Trust and that respondent, as successor trustee of the John Trust, be enjoined from making any attempt to dispose of the property. In late 2011, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that there was "no genuine issue of material fact" that John's "actions in his capacity as Trustee violated the terms of [the Theresa Trust] and specific provisions of the Uniform Trust Code." Following a hearing, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment, finding that there were many disputed factual issues that could not be decided on the pleadings. On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court erred in granting respondent's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the transfer of the real estate in 2002 effectively terminated the trust and the petitioner's interest in the trust. He asserted that "[w]hen John breached his fiduciary duties, the trust gained an additional asset– a cause of action against John or his estate," and, thus, "[n]either [the petitioner's] beneficial interest nor the trust was terminated by John's conveyance." After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Theresa Trust did not terminate in 2002, and neither did the petitioner's interest therein. The trial court's finding, that there were "many disputed issues of material fact" that could not be decided on the pleadings, was not erroneous. Accordingly, the Court affirmed its denial of petitioner's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "In re Theresa Houlahan Trust" on Justia Law

Respondent Hellen Couture appealed a probate court decision to grant petitioner Thomas Couture's petition to impose a constructive trust for the benefit of the decedent's heirs over certain life insurance proceeds paid to respondent upon the decedent's death. After review of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the probate court's decision, and affirmed. View "In re Estate of Lucien Couture" on Justia Law

Defendant Osahenrumwen Ojo appealed after a jury convicted him of theft by deception in Superior Court. The conviction followed a previous jury trial for a related charge, which ended in a mistrial based upon a hung jury. On appeal, he argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the New Hampshire Constitution barred the second trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Hampshire v. Ojo" on Justia Law

The parties were divorced in 2004 and had a son, who was fourteen years old at the time of the hearing on petitioner's motion to modify child support. As part of the property settlement in the parties' divorce, respondent was awarded Squam Lakeside Farm, Inc. (SLF), a campground consisting of 119 sites with trailer hook-ups for water, electricity, and sewer. SLF was a S-corporation; respondent was the sole shareholder. SLF's profits, losses, and capital gains were reported on respondent's personal federal income tax returns as shareholder. In 2010, respondent altered his business plan and, after expending almost $400,000 in legal bills and surveying costs and obtaining the necessary permits from the State, began marketing the campsites as condominiums, rather than as seasonal rentals. Based upon the sale of many of the condominiums, respondent reported capital gains on his 2011 personal tax return. Furthermore, respondent restructured a loan that he owed to SLF, converting it to a line of credit. Since that time, he used the line of credit for various expenses, both personal and business-related. Respondent never made any payments toward the outstanding principal or interest. In November 2011, petitioner moved to modify child support, asserting that three years had passed since the previous support order and that circumstances had materially changed, warranting a new support order. At the hearing, the parties disagreed about what comprised respondent's "gross income" for the purpose of determining child support. The trial court determined that the capital gains generated by the sale of the condominium units were "irregular" income that should be considered as part of the respondent's gross income for the purpose of establishing his child support obligation. Petitioner argued that the net profits from the sales of SLF condominium units were "gross income" for purposes of calculating child support. Respondent countered that, because several neighboring states include capital gains in the definition of "gross income," but New Hampshire did not, the legislature intended to exclude capital gains from "gross income" when calculating child support. The New Hampshire Supreme Court was not persuaded by respondent's argument that, because some states included capital gains in the definition of "gross income" the New Hampshire legislature specifically intended to exclude them. "Our task here is to interpret our child support statute, RSA chapter 458-C; the definition of "gross income" in other states' statutes does not control our analysis." The Court concluded that capital gains from SLF were "gross income" for the purpose of determining child support. Because the trial court erroneously relied upon respondent's adjusted gross income, the Court vacated and remanded for a redetermination of his child support obligation. View "In the Matter of Maves and Moore" on Justia Law

In 2008, defendants K. William Clauson and the law firm of Clauson, Atwood & Spaneas, represented plaintiff James Yager in an action against D.H. Hardwick & Sons, Inc. (Hardwick), which alleged that Hardwick was the party who "trespassed on Plaintiff's land and cut timber belonging to Plaintiff." The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hardwick because the action was filed more than three years after the timber cutting ceased and, therefore, was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court also concluded that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the discovery rule applied to toll the statute of limitations. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. Plaintiff subsequently filed a malpractice action against defendants, alleging that they "breached the duty of care owed to [plaintiff] by failing to file the D.H. Hardwick action within the timeframe allowed by the applicable statute of limitations, and by otherwise failing to represent [plaintiff's] interests with reasonable professional care, skill, and knowledge." Defendants moved to dismiss the case, alleging that plaintiff: (1) failed to provide requested discovery information; and (2) failed to disclose the experts required to prove his case. The trial court granted the defendants' motion. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that expert testimony was not required to prove legal malpractice where defendants failed to file a claim within the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. In granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, the trial court did not examine the specific facts of the case to determine whether the nature of the case was such that expert testimony was required. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's dismissal order and remand for further proceedings. View "Yager v. Clauson" on Justia Law