NHCaseLaw.com

GALWAY, J. The plaintiffs, Howard Joseph Guyotte and Louise A. Guyotte, appeal, and the defendants, Michael O’Neill and Bay Shores Building and Remodeling, LLC, cross-appeal, from a jury verdict in Superior Court (Smukler, J.) in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

DUGGAN, J. The defendants, Robert Boynton and Tina LaRochelle (tenants), appeal a decision of the Hooksett District Court (LaPointe, J.) ruling against them in an action by the plaintiff, Liam Hooksett, LLC, for unpaid rent and possession of certain property based upon nonpayment of rent. See RSA 540:13 (2007). We hold that the plaintiff failed to establish that it is the owner or lessor of the property at issue. See RSA 540:12 (2007). We further hold that, because the plaintiff filed an action to recover both possession and unpaid rent against the tenants, the tenants were statutorily entitled to raise any defense, claim, or counterclaim in response to the plaintiff’s action. See RSA 540:13, III (2007). Accordingly, we reverse.

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, Michael Dansereau, appeals a ruling by the Trial Court (McGuire, J.) denying his motion to vacate his convictions and sentences. We hold that the defendant was unlawfully sentenced to an extended term of imprisonment under RSA 651:6, II(a) (2006) and three years probation under RSA 651:2, V(a) (2006). Accordingly, we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.

BRODERICK, C.J. The defendants, Charles and Susan Stanton, appeal a judgment of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) finding them liable for breach of contract and defamation. The plaintiff, Harold Lassonde, III, doing business as Mountain View Construction, cross-appeals, challenging the amount of damages awarded on his defamation claim, and the trial court’s failure to include attorney’s fees and interest in his breach of contract award. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

In this civil action, the plaintiff, MBNA America Bank, NA ("MBNA"), seeks to enforce an arbitration award against the defendant, Troy T. Cornock ("the defendant"). Presently before the Court is the defendant's motion for summary judgment. MBNA objects. After consideration of the parties' pleadings, evidence, argument, and applicable law, the Court grants the defendant's motion.

DUGGAN, J. The petitioner, Hogan Family Enterprises, Ltd. (Hogan), appeals orders of the Superior Court (Lewis, J.) denying its motion to return the matter to the trial docket, and granting a motion of the respondent, Town of Rye (town), to enforce a settlement. We affirm.

BRODERICK, C.J. The respondent, Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (Vermont Mutual), appeals the denial by the Superior Court (Abramson, J.) of its summary judgment motion, and the grant of petitioner Marilyn Bates’ cross-motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

This matter arises out of an alleged phone-jamming scheme during the November 2002 election. The background of this matter has been summarized in earlier orders. Therefore, the Court proceeds directly to the merits of the pending motions to dismiss, regarding which a hearing was held on April 11, 2006.

Before the court is one of several similar lawsuits concerning the alleged failure of numerous insurance companies to refund unearned insurance premiums to their clients. Sharon Dunn and Robin Preve (the "plaintiffs") are purchasers of credit life and credit disability insurance issued by American Heritage Life Insurance Company ("the defendant" or "AHL"), a credit insurer. The plaintiffs have brought an action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the defendant, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) restitution; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) conversion; and (6) equitable relief including an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust, and an order requiring AHL to implement controls to assure the prompt refund of unearned premiums. The plaintiffs now move for class certification as to Count I (Breach of Contract), contending that this case satisfies the requirements of Superior Court Rule 27-A. The defendant objects. Upon review of the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

The plaintiffs have brought suit against three sets of attorneys alleging negligence on their part regarding a failed business transaction. The plaintiffs are the owners of Television Station WNDS, and they executed an Asset Purchase Agreement for its sale on September 26, 1996, with Ramcast Corp., predecessor in interest to a company named Global Broadcasting System, Inc. Pursuant to the Agreement, the plaintiffs turned over possession of the television station to Global on April 4, 1997. The purchase price was 18 million dollars and representations were made by Global's attorneys, based upon the assurances of Global's principals, that the moneys had been wired that day to the plaintiffs when in fact they had not. The plaintiffs initially sued Global for breach of contract and recovered a judgment. However, the judgment is uncollected because of the bankruptcy of Global.