Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Robin Plaisted appealed a superior court order that dismissed her case against defendant Jeffrey LaBrie as untimely. The issue between the parties stemmed from the contract to sell real estate. Plaintiff wrote, and the defendant cashed, a check made out to "Jeff LaBrie" in the amount of $19,500. The check noted that it was "[f]rom R. Plaisted for full payment for 50% of 10 Nelson [Street] Property." Defendant, as president of Blue Star, signed a "Declaration of Ownership" stating that Blue Star granted to the plaintiff a fifty percent interest in the property. Two years later, Blue Star sold the property for a profit of $98,855.97 and wired the proceeds to a bank account "[f]or the benefit of Blue Star Consulting (Jeff LaBrie)." Plaintiff petitioned the trial court, seeking a declaration that she had been a one-half owner of the property, as well as an order requiring the defendant to pay her one-half of the sale proceeds. Finding no error in the trial court's determination that plaintiff's suit was time barred, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal. View "Plaisted v. LaBrie" on Justia Law

Respondents New Hampshire Fish & Game and the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Defelopment (CORD) appealed a superior court decision that granted summary judgment to petitioners Town of Newbury and Lake Sunapee Protective Association. Petitioners challenged CORD's decision to approve Fish & Game's design of a boat launch. The trial court held that CORD lacked authority to approve the launch because it was a class III public highway, and could not approve "new highway projects." Disagreeing with the trial court's interpretation of RSA 162-C:6, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Town of Newbury v. New Hampshire Fish & Game Dept." on Justia Law

Defendant William Ploof was convicted by jury of aggravated felonious assault and conspiracy to commit felonious aggravated assault. On appeal, he argued that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to convict him, and that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial during the victim's testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a rational jury could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. View "New Hampshire v. Ploof" on Justia Law

Defendant John Genovesi appealed the superior court's refusal to dismiss a claim against him for professional negligence brought by plaintiff Kimball Union Academy (KUA). KUA wanted a new field house built for its campus. The designer was supposed to supply a locally licensed architect and engineer for the project. Defendant was not licensed in New Hampshire nor did he live in state, but was hired anyway to serve as project engineer. Among other things, defendant failed to provide special inspection instructions for the footings and foundation system as required by the local building code. KUA had a number of problems with the footing and foundation that prompted it to terminate its contract with the designer and sue all parties involved. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that defendant's design work in New Jersey led to the injury to KUA in New Hampshire. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Kimball Union Academy v. Genovesi" on Justia Law

Petitioners Town of Newbury and Lake Sunapee Protective Association appealed a Wetlands Council decision. The Council upheld a grant by the Department of Environmental Services of a shoreland impact permit to respondent New Hampshire Fish & Game for the construction of a public boat launch with associated parking on the shore of Lake Sunapee. Petitioners contended it was error to uphold the Department's decision because the Department had violated two provisions of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act with an unnecessary launch contrary to state law. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of Lake Sunapee Protective Association" on Justia Law

Respondent Town of Danville appealed a Superior Court order abating "land use change tax" (LUCT) assessments issued to petitioners Maplevale Builders, LLC, Hoyt Real Estate Trust, and John H. and Maryann Manning, on the basis that the LUCT bills were untimely under RSA 79-A:7 (Supp. 2006) (amended 2009, 2010, 2012). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court erred in ruling that all of the lots of the subdivision in question changed in use in 2009, when the Planning Board granted final subdivision approval. Because the trial court did not follow the caselaw in its consideration of when each lot changed in use, the Supreme Court vacated its abatement order. The parties did not ask the Court to determine on appeal when each lot changed in use or whether the exception in RSA 79-A:7, V(a) applied. Thus, the Court remanded for a redetermination of when each lot changed in use, and whether in light of the change in use date, the LUCT bills were timely. The Court concluded that the amended version of RSA 79-A:7, II(c) applied to any notice or discovery of change in use occurring on or after April 1, 2009. View "Maplevale Builders, LLC v. Town of Danville" on Justia Law

Petitioner Justin Czyzewski appealed a Superior Court ruling that denied his request for a declaration that although he was convicted of attempted sexual assault, he was not required to register as a sex offender under New Hampshire law. Although the record did not contain the details of his conviction for attempted sexual assault, the trial court noted that the petitioner "engaged in conduct in an online chat room with an undercover police detective, whom [he] believed to be a 13-year old female." The petitioner lived in Pennsylvania but, as the trial court stated, "was required to register as a sex offender [there] because he would be required to register in New Hampshire." Upon review, the Supreme Court could not " subscribe to the petitioner's statutory interpretation," and affirmed the Superior Court's ruling. View "Czyzewski v. New Hampshire Department of Safety" on Justia Law

Petitioners Thomas Morrissey, Margaret Russell, Dorothy Sears, Reginald Rogers, Barbara Sanders and others appealed a ruling of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) Wetlands Council (Council) that affirmed the issuance by the Wetlands Bureau of a permit to respondent Town of Lynne. Petitioners argued that when issuing the wetlands permit, the Bureau and Council did not consider the total wetlands impact of the proposed project because they misinterpreted the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in an earlier case. Agreeing that the Bureau misinterpreted the applicable statutes, and it did not consider the total wetlands impact of the proposed project, the Supreme Court vacated DES' decision and remanded the case to the Council for further proceedings. View "Appeal of Thomas Morrissey" on Justia Law

Petitioner Christina Deyeso appealed a superior court order that denied her petition for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and awarded summary judgment in favor of respondent Jules Cavadi, permitting the forced sale of Deyeso's home. Deyeso and Stephen Barnes have three children together but never married. Deyeso is currently married to Keith Walsh, with whom she lives in Stratham at a home that she purchased in 1997. Cavadi held a 1991 judgment against Barnes. In September 2004, in a common-law "reach and apply" action, he sued Barnes and Deyeso in a Massachusetts trial court, alleging that Barnes paid for certain real estate held in Deyeso's name in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, including the Stratham property. A Massachusetts superior court found that Barnes had an equitable interest in the Property valued at $94,854, thus entitling Cavadi to an equitable lien on the Property in that amount. After accounting for mortgages on the property, the equity value remaining in the Property was $72,373.41. Deyeso appealed the Massachusetts trial court's decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which upheld the portion of the trial court's order declaring Barnes's interest in the Property to be $94,854. Cavadi then obtained an order in Massachusetts allowing a public auction of the Property to recover the amount of Barnes's interest. Deyeso claimed that both she and her husband were entitled to homestead protection under RSA 480:1 (Supp. 2012), which, given the prior mortgages, would leave no equity for Cavadi in the event of a forced sale. The trial court then ruled in favor of Deyeso, concluding that, although her husband could claim the homestead protection due to his lack of ownership, her homestead interest prevailed over Cavadi's equitable lien. Cavadi then moved for reconsideration, and the the trial court eventually granted Cavadi's motion, concluding that, Deyeso's "conduct in this case amounts to fraudulent behavior" and, therefore, permitted the court to use "its equitable powers to negate [her] homestead exemption." Upon review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed: "assuming, however, that Deyeso accepted the money from Barnes with the knowledge that he sought to avoid satisfying his debt to Cavadi, RSA 480:1 protects her homestead interest in the Property. . . . We therefore agree with Deyeso that, in the absence of a showing of fraud, deception, or other misconduct in the procurement of the funds used to purchase, invest in, or improve a homestead, the statutory homestead exemption applies ñ even when a judgment debtor's funds are so used with the intent of hindering or avoiding a creditor's legitimate claims." View "Deyeso v. Cavadi" on Justia Law

Respondent Cheryl C. appealed a circuit court order that granted a special petition to terminate her guardianship over her grandchildren Raven G. and Salem G. filed by the children's biological mother, petitioner Jessica B. Following a hearing in January 2008, at which both parents appeared and testified, the court found that respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that continuing the temporary guardianship was in the best interests of both children because their parents, petitioner and Stacey G., engaged in domestic violence and in the illegal use of controlled drugs while the children were in their care. The court ordered that the temporary guardianship would remain in effect until petitioner and Stacey G. complied with a number of conditions to "demonstrate[] that they are responsible enough to act as parents." In May 2008, after another hearing, the court found that neither the petitioner nor Stacey G. was complying with the conditions imposed by the court. The court made the guardianship permanent and provided for supervised contact between the children and their parents at respondent's discretion. Petitioner was subsequently incarcerated for several months as a result of a criminal conviction and then released on probation. In January 2010, she filed a motion seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL). A GAL was appointed, and the parties worked out an agreement allowing gradually increased contact between petitioner and the children. In February 2011, petitioner moved to terminate the guardianship, asserting that she had complied with all of the conditions set forth by the court in January 2008. Respondent objected to terminating the guardianship. Stacey G. also opposed termination, but argued that he should be given unrestricted and unsupervised time with the children. The court held a hearing; petitioner admitted that she had not complied with a January 2008 order but argued that the court should permit her to integrate the children into her life rather than continue the artificial relationship imposed by the guardianship. The GAL testified that he believed it would be in the best interests of the children to terminate the guardianship gradually. The respondent and Stacey G. took issue with the GAL's recommendation, arguing that he had limited contact with the children and was biased. The respondent's expert witness concluded that both children had been physically and sexually abused by petitioner and opined that forcing the children to spend time with their mother would be emotionally devastating for them and recommended that any such contact be supervised by a professional. Upon review of the issue of whether the guardianship should have been continued, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court applied an erroneous burden of proof, and therefore vacated its order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re guardianship of Raven G." on Justia Law