Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Brown v. Concord Group Insurance
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-06-08 · cited 9×
The case involved homeowners who purchased a house and later discovered water damage that they attributed to negligent repairs performed by the original builder in 2007 under a claim against the builder's commercial general liability insurer. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, concluding that the damage was not caused by an "occurrence" and was excluded under the "your work" provision because it involved the builder's own work product from both the 2003 construction and 2007 repairs. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the 2009 damage was caused by the 2007 repairs (to separate work product, which could qualify as an occurrence) or the original 2003 construction, and that the policy language treated discrete jobs as distinct work products for coverage purposes.
propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
In Re Brownell
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-05-11 · cited 14×
This case involves a divorce between Ronald and Irene Brownell, where the husband appealed the family court's final decree on multiple grounds related to alimony and property division. The trial court had considered the husband's federal veterans’ disability benefits as income for alimony calculations, treated potential distributions from his mother's trust as marital property, ordered him to pay half of those distributions despite prior dissipation, and held him in indirect civil contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony and violating an anti-hypothecation order. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the decree in full, reasoning that federal law does not preclude counting veterans’ benefits as income under state alimony statutes, that the trust distributions qualified as marital assets subject to equitable distribution, and that the contempt finding was supported by the record without preserved error on the husband's ability to pay. The court noted the trial court's broad discretion in such matters and its credibility findings against the husband, who had spent trust funds on drugs and other items in violation of court orders.
family lawpropertyfederal power
MBAHABA v. Morgan
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-05-11 · cited 21×
The case involved a mother suing individually and on behalf of her minor daughter after the child suffered lead poisoning in a rental apartment managed by the defendant's LLC, which had contracted with the building owner. The trial court dismissed the direct personal claims against the defendant and granted him summary judgment on the plaintiff's veil-piercing claim seeking to hold him individually liable. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the direct claims, reasoning that RSA 304-C:25 shields LLC members and managers from personal liability solely by reason of their status and that no facts showed the defendant owed independent common-law duties. It reversed summary judgment on the veil-piercing claim, however, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the defendant had transferred the LLC's clients and assets to a new LLC he controlled while the lawsuit remained pending against the original entity, which could support a finding that the LLC form was used to promote injustice.
torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
State v. McGurk
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-05-11 · cited 8×
The case involved Free Bail Bonds appealing the Manchester District Court's forfeiture of two bonds totaling $11,000 that guaranteed Sean McGurk's appearance in court. The defendant failed to appear because he was incarcerated in Vermont on new charges. The court affirmed the forfeiture, holding that under RSA 597:30, a surety is excused only if prevented by an act of God or the government of New Hampshire or the United States, not by another state's actions, consistent with common law. The trial court properly forfeited the bonds as appearance bonds due to the defendant's non-appearance and did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Guardianship of Raymond B.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-04-10 · cited 2×
The case involved step-sons petitioning the probate court for guardianship over their step-father's person and estate, alleging incapacity based on behavior that occurred before he left an assisted-living facility in Florida more than seven months earlier, with no allegations of recent behavior after he moved to New Hampshire. The probate court dismissed the petition and denied a requested psychiatric evaluation, finding the petition failed to satisfy statutory requirements. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, interpreting RSA 464-A:4 and RSA 464-A:2, XI to require that a guardianship petition include specific factual allegations of the proposed ward's inability to care for himself, with all such evidence occurring within six months prior to filing and at least one incident within twenty days of filing. The court reasoned that these timing rules support the statutory presumption of competence and protect against unwarranted interference with civil liberties by ensuring guardianships are based on current need.
family lawprocedure
State v. Guild
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012-04-10
In State v. Guild, the defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of felonious sexual assault and one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault involving the same minor victim. He appealed, arguing that the trial court violated evidence rules and a statute by failing to sequester the victim's mother during her testimony, erred by denying a motion to disqualify a juror without conducting voir dire, and wrongly denied his motion to dismiss the aggravated charge. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, assuming without deciding that sequestration was required but rejecting any per se reversal rule, finding the juror-bias argument unpreserved because no voir dire was requested, and holding that the motion to dismiss did not preserve a weight-of-the-evidence challenge. The court relied on precedents distinguishing sequestration violations from automatic reversal and emphasizing preservation requirements for appellate review.
criminal lawprocedure