Carol Ann Conboy

The case involved Liberty Assembly of God appealing the City of Concord's 2008 decision, upheld by the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals, to grant only a partial religious use tax exemption on the church's property under RSA 72:23, III. The City determined that portions of the main building, including apartments, storage areas, a second-floor bathroom, and some land, were not used directly for religious purposes and thus taxable, while exempting the sanctuary, offices, and parsonage. The court affirmed the BTLA ruling after reviewing the statutory requirements for exemption, finding that the disputed spaces did not qualify as owned, used, and occupied directly for religious training or purposes, and rejecting claims of unconstitutional government entanglement with religion or that the statute mandates full exemption for houses of worship.

religious libertytaxesproperty

This case involved a divorce action in which the husband sought a fault-based divorce after the wife, during an argument, threatened to kill family members and burn down the marital home, leading to her conviction and imprisonment for attempted arson and criminal mischief. The trial court granted the divorce on fault grounds based on the wife's conviction, divided the marital property unequally in the husband's favor, denied the wife's alimony request, and adopted a stipulated parenting plan giving the husband primary responsibility for their child. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the fault-based divorce, holding that the husband was not an 'innocent party' under RSA 458:7 because he had committed adultery, which would independently support a divorce claim. The court affirmed the unequal property division, finding it supported by special circumstances including the parties' relative debts and the need to provide a home for the child, and upheld the denial of alimony and the parenting plan on procedural grounds.

family lawproperty

In State v. Willey, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault against his daughter, based on evidence of repeated assaults beginning when she was fifteen. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of a mistrial or additional curative instructions after testimony from a state trooper that allegedly implied other misconduct, as well as the sentencing court's consideration of improper factors such as his exercise of constitutional rights. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial judge may have relied on the defendant's decision to go to trial or other protected conduct. The core reasoning focused on preserving the conviction where any prejudice was cured or harmless, while requiring a fresh sentencing determination free from constitutional violations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a father suing the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for his son, claiming that statements in her report about his undisclosed criminal history were negligently made and breached an implied contract. The trial court dismissed the claims based on absolute quasi-judicial immunity, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the GAL's duties of investigating and reporting to the court are integral to the judicial process, thus entitling her to immunity even for allegedly negligent acts. The plaintiff's status as an attorney did not change the analysis, as immunity depends on the nature of the acts performed.

family lawtorts & liability

In State v. Davidson, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of simple assault and one count of criminal mischief arising from a domestic dispute with his live-in partner that escalated into physical contact, a damaged door, and a car incident. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of evidence suggesting he was controlling and its refusal to instruct the jury on defense of property. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence under Rule 404(b), but reversed the denial of the defense-of-property instruction and remanded, reasoning that RSA 627:8 permits force to prevent any reasonably apparent unlawful taking of property and does not require proof of theft, as confirmed by legislative history and prior case law.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved a defendant who entered a nolo contendere plea to a shoplifting misdemeanor without being advised by the court of potential immigration consequences. After removal proceedings began, she sought to withdraw her plea, arguing it was not knowing due to lack of advice on deportation risks. The court affirmed the denial of her motion, holding that immigration consequences are collateral rather than direct consequences of a plea, so due process does not require courts to inform defendants of them. The decision reasoned that Padilla v. Kentucky applies to counsel's obligations but not to the trial court's duties in accepting pleas, and this applies under both state and federal constitutions.

criminal lawprocedureimmigration

In this case, Daniel Eaton appealed the probate court's denial of his request for attorney’s fees after he petitioned for guardianship over his mother, objected to his brother’s petition, and ultimately settled on a third brother serving as guardian. The court held that RSA 464-A:43 does not require the ward’s estate to pay a petitioner’s legal fees, interpreting the phrase “fees for the counsel” to mean only counsel appointed for the proposed ward. The decision rested on the statute’s plain language, its purpose of protecting the rights of proposed wards, and the broader guardianship scheme that provides for appointed counsel for the ward but contains no provision for petitioners’ fees. The court rejected arguments based on legislative history and public policy, affirming that each party bears its own fees absent bad faith or other statutory authority.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the New Hampshire Banking Department initiating administrative proceedings against Jeffrey Frost and related LLCs for conducting two seller-financed mortgage transactions without proper licensing under RSA chapter 397-A. The superior court permanently enjoined the proceedings, ruling that the Department lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioners were not engaged in the business of making mortgages. The Supreme Court affirmed, interpreting the statute to exempt isolated seller-financing transactions not part of a regular business activity, even for non-natural persons like LLCs in this context. The court also denied the request for attorney's fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a negligence lawsuit by Steven Ford against the Town of Windham and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation after he was injured in a car accident at the intersection of two state highways during a widespread ice storm that knocked out traffic lights. Ford alleged the defendants failed to warn motorists of the hazard despite receiving notice hours earlier. The trial court dismissed the claims, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the Town owed no duty to maintain or warn about conditions on class I and II state highways under RSA 231:93 and prior precedent like Trull v. Town of Conway. The Court also ruled that DOT was protected by discretionary function immunity in deciding how to allocate resources during a severe winter emergency, as the MUTCD provided only guidance rather than mandatory requirements.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Patricia Kalar's challenge to the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services' reduction of her food stamp benefits under the federal Food Stamp Act, after the department disallowed certain claimed excess medical deductions for expenses like private school tuition, school transportation, cell phone service, and sports activities for her and her two disabled sons. The department had previously allowed some of these deductions in 2006 but reversed course during a 2009 recertification review. The court affirmed the hearings officer's decision upholding most of the disallowances, finding that the expenses did not qualify as permissible medical deductions under 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3), that the prior allowance did not bind the department in a new review, and that the petitioner was not denied meaningful access to the program under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. The court reasoned that the regulations limit such deductions to specific medical costs, the petitioner received allowable benefits, and differential treatment among disability categories does not constitute discrimination.

civil rightshealthcarefederal power

In the case of In re Dedopoulos, Attorney Stuart Dedopoulos was fined $100 by the Superior Court for failing to appear at a pretrial conference in a misdemeanor appeal case because he was attending a conflicting pretrial conference in an unrelated felony case in another county. Dedopoulos had filed a motion to continue the conference citing the conflict and his client's travel issues, made multiple attempts to follow up with the court clerk, and arranged for opposing counsel to explain the situation, but the motion remained unresolved until the conference date. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the sanction, concluding that the attorney's good-faith efforts to resolve the scheduling conflict made the imposition of the fine an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over guardianship of Nicholas, a minor whose father had died, with his half-brother Jonathan petitioning for guardianship against the wishes of the mother, Rebecca, who had left the family years earlier and relocated out of state. The trial court awarded guardianship to Jonathan, finding by clear and convincing evidence that it served the child's best interests given the child's strong bond with his brother, his distress at the prospect of moving, the mother's limited contact and strained relationship with him since 2007, and the stability Jonathan provided in the child's home environment. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the guardianship statute adequately protects parental rights by requiring clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption favoring a fit parent, distinguishing the case from Troxel v. Granville, and rejecting arguments that the order amounted to a de facto termination of parental rights. The court noted that a guardian remains subject to removal and that the mother's inability to exercise visitation due to distance did not equate to termination of rights.

family lawcivil rights

In this case, a music teacher and his union appealed a New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board decision rejecting their unfair labor practice claims against a school district. The claims alleged that the district improperly subcontracted the band program by arranging for students to participate in programs at another school and online, and that it violated its reduction-in-force policy when terminating the teacher's employment due to low enrollment. The court affirmed the board's rulings, holding that the district's actions constituted a permissible curriculum change under state law and the collective bargaining agreement rather than unlawful subcontracting, and that the termination was properly treated as a non-renewal subject to the contractual grievance procedure (including arbitration), placing the reduction-in-force claim outside the board's jurisdiction. The court found no legal error or unreasonableness in the board's conclusions based on the record and governing statutes.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filing a landlord-tenant writ in district court to obtain possession of real property in Chester, New Hampshire, following an alleged foreclosure sale. The defendants contested the plaintiff's ownership, arguing no foreclosure sale had occurred, and objected to the admission of unauthenticated documents. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, admitted the plaintiff's evidence including an uncertified foreclosure deed and affidavit of ownership, and entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving ownership because the submitted documents were inadmissible hearsay under evidence rules requiring certification or witness testimony for copies of public records. The court emphasized that without authenticated proof, the plaintiff could not establish entitlement to possession under RSA 540:12.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Michael Moncada on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, ten counts of felonious sexual assault, and one count of bail jumping, arising from sexual contact with the 13-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. Moncada appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial and in denying his motion to dismiss the aggravated charges for lack of sufficient evidence that he was a member of the same household as the victim. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, applying the two-pronged competency test and concluding that the evidence showed the defendant had the ability to consult with counsel and a rational understanding of the proceedings. On the household issue, the court determined there was sufficient evidence that the defendant participated in and contributed to the maintenance of the household by staying nightly at the victim's home, caring for the children, and acting in a parental role.

criminal law

In State v. Hutchinson, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after a jury trial for the death of his former girlfriend, whom he had beaten and strangled in 1991, causing severe brain damage that left her in a near-comatose state until her death from respiratory infection and related complications in 2005. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove legal causation because his actions only increased her risk of illness rather than directly causing her death after such a long period. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence, including expert testimony linking the brain injury and immobility to the fatal complications, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's conduct was both the but-for cause and the legal (proximate) cause of death under the standards from State v. Lamprey and State v. Seymour.

criminal law

The case involved former spouses where the plaintiff ex-husband sought a final domestic violence protective order against the defendant ex-wife under RSA 173-B, alleging harassment through numerous threatening emails and texts, false accusations in local and national media, and false reports to police, the Board of Medicine, and DCYF. The trial court granted the order after finding the conduct met the definition of harassment under RSA 644:4 and created a credible threat to the plaintiff's safety. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, holding that even assuming harassment occurred, the evidence was insufficient to establish an ongoing credible threat to the plaintiff's physical safety, as the plaintiff conceded the defendant herself posed no direct risk and his concerns stemmed only from speculation about third parties acting on the defendant's statements.

family lawcriminal law

The case involved a defamation lawsuit filed by Dean Waterfield against Meredith Corporation and related defendants over a 2003 television news broadcast about his management of his deceased wife's estate while he was incarcerated in Connecticut. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the claim time-barred under Connecticut's two-year statute of limitations after determining that Waterfield was not a New Hampshire resident when he filed suit and that the broadcast did not reach New Hampshire. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed in part but reversed in part and remanded, clarifying that statutes of limitations are generally treated as procedural but that New Hampshire's three-year limit applies without further choice-of-law analysis if the plaintiff was a resident or the cause arose in the state at the relevant time; otherwise, the court must apply the five-factor choice-of-law test from prior precedent to decide which state's limitations period governs. The court also declined to address other issues like res judicata that the trial court had not reached.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether seven residents had standing as "aggrieved persons" under RSA 676:5 to appeal a planning board's approvals of a major subdivision and site plan allowing conversion of an existing building into a four-unit condominium on a 1.75-acre lot in a mountain zone. The zoning board of adjustment granted the appeal, but the superior court vacated that ruling. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the residents expressed support for the project, alleged no specific harm or direct injury to their properties from increased traffic, noise, or reduced open space, and asserted only a general interest in zoning compliance. Most residents also did not participate in the planning board proceedings, and the one who did participated only minimally.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Northern Security Insurance Company's appeal of a trial court order granting summary judgment to its insured, Michael Connors, in a coverage dispute. The underlying civil suit arose from the 2005 murder of Jack Reid, with claims against Connors including civil conspiracy, wrongful death, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on allegations that he received a package from a co-defendant and was asked to allow use of his property. The trial court ruled that the insurer had a duty to defend Connors on the civil conspiracy to commit false imprisonment and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims under a homeowner's policy with a personal injury endorsement. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the writ did not allege facts showing Connors's conduct was inextricably intertwined with excluded intentional acts like murder, and that doubts about coverage must be resolved in favor of the insured. The court declined to address additional arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

proceduretorts & liability