NHCaseLaw.com

HICKS, J. The petitioner, Lakeside Lodge, Inc. (Lakeside), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Abramson, J.) affirming a boat use limit on Lakeside’s Lake Sunapee dock, imposed by the Town of New London Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). We hold that state law and regulations preempt the regulation imposed by the ZBA, and reverse.

NADEAU, J. The plaintiff, Town of Lyndeborough (town), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Lynn, J.) declaring that RSA chapter 215-A (2000 & Supp. 2003) preempts the town’s site plan review process as a prerequisite to establishing an Off Highway Recreational Vehicle (OHRV) trail on land owned by the defendants, Boisvert Properties, LLC, Barbara Blaisdell Boisvert, and Laurent Boisvert, II. We reverse and remand.

The extended history of this case can be found in North Country Environmental Services, Inc. v. Town of Bethlehem, 146 N.H. 348, 350-52 (2001). At stake are the interests of the Town of Bethlehem (Town) in exerting local control over the expanding private landfill operations of North Country Environmental Services, Inc. (NCES) within Town boundaries, and the interests of NCES in pursuing the essential job of accepting and processing municipal solid waste, subject to the State’s comprehensive plan for Solid Waste Management, RSA 149 – M.

The plaintiff, the Town of Lyndeborough (town), instituted this action against the defendants Boisvert Properties, LLC, Barbara Blaisdell Boisvert and Laurent Boisvert (the Boisverts), seeking to prevent them from allowing their property to be used as part of the state trail system for the operation of Off Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRVs) without first obtaining site plan approval from the town’s planning board. The State of New Hampshire (State), acting on behalf of the department of resources and economic development (DRED), the Granite State ATV Association (association), and a group of the defendants’ neighbors (the “near neighbors”) were subsequently granted permission to intervene in the case to represent their respective interests. Presently before the court is the issue of whether the town’s land use regulations are preempted by the state statute governing OHRVs, RSA chapter 215-A (2000 and Supp. 2002). I conclude that RSA 215-A preempts the town from requiring the defendants to obtain site plan approval as a prerequisite to permitting public use of trails which have been accepted by DRED as part of the state OHRV trail system, but that the statute does not preclude the town from regulating certain other aspects of OHRV use on the subject property.

This action for civil conspiracy and violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RSA 358-A, was commenced in February 2001. The plaintiffs are three creditors of the defendants Reginald Gaudette, his wife Louise Gaudette (hereinafter the Gaudettes), and/or various corporations, partnerships or other entities which the Gaudettes controlled. The remaining defendants are Jeffrey Gaudette and Lisa Robinson, son and daughter of the Gaudettes; Edith and Lionel Gaudette, mother and father of Reginald; Thomas J. Thomas, Jr., Esq., Marc L. Van De Water, Esq. and Glenn C. Raiche, Esq. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the lawyer defendants”), attorneys who provided legal services to the Gaudettes or entities which they controlled; and Mark Ring, a certified public accountant (CPA) who provided accounting services for the Gaudettes or related entities. Plaintiffs’ amended bill in equity alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs, in their capacity as creditors of the Gaudettes or entities controlled by them, from collecting on their claims or judgments by sheltering or concealing assets of the debtors through a series of fraudulent transfers and the creation of various “shell” entities. Because most if not all of the allegedly fraudulent activities of the defendants occurred in connection with proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court involving, first, R & R Associates (a partnership in which Reginald Gaudette was a partner) and, later, Gaudette himself as debtors, the lawyer defendants now move to dismiss this case on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal bankruptcy law. I conclude that the lawyer defendants’ position is correct and that their motion must be granted.