NHCaseLaw.com

BRODERICK, C.J. The petitioners, Larrie Bratko and George Domey, co-guardians over the person and estate of Donald Domey, the ward, appeal a decision of the Hillsborough County Probate Court (Cloutier, J.) awarding the respondent, Judith Domey, damages and support arrearages. We reverse.

This is a civil action for damages for sexual abuse committed against the plaintiff by Brother Beaulieu, a member of the Order of the Sacred Heart, a former teacher at Bishop Guertin High School, and a former staff employee at Camp Fatima. The plaintiff alleges he was sexually abused and molested by Beaulieu between 1972 and 1975 while a camper at Camp Fatima and a student at Bishop Guertin High School. The alleged abuse ended in the fall of 1975 during the plaintiffs junior year at Bishop Guertin when Beaulieu attempted to force the plaintiff to perform fellatio. After the forcible assault, the plaintiff left school and never returned.

Plaintiffs are all of the children and grandchildren of Helen V. Meding, and are the sole income and remainder beneficiaries of the Helen V. Meding Trust (the Trust). The Trust names two cc-trustees, Attorney John L. Fairbanks and Dartmouth National Bank, the predecessor of defendant Fleet Bank - NH. The will appoints John Fairbanks as executor, and Dartmouth National Bank as alternate executor if Fairbanks dies or otherwise fails to qualify. On December 28, 1989, John Fairbanks was indicted by the Sullivan County- grand jury for theft. He immediately disappeared and has not yet been apprehended. There appears little doubt that Fairbanks, as executor, stole significant assets from the Meding Trust. Plaintiffs seek damages from defendant for the funds stolen by Fairbanks arguing that the Bank, as co-trustee, breached its fiduciary duties to-them as beneficiaries of the trust.

The plaintiffs, Frederick Amoche ("Amoche") and Jon Valliere ("Valliere") initiated this cause of action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the defendant, Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company ("GTL"). The plaintiffs each purchased credit life and credit disability insurance issued by the defendant insurer, as part of a retail installment sales contract for the purchase of an automobile. The plaintiffs are asserting five claims arising from the defendant's alleged breach of its contractual, statutory and fiduciary obligations to refund unearned premiums to the plaintiffs upon early loan repayment. The defendant now moves to dismiss all counts, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted [13]. The defendant also specifically moves to dismiss Valliere's claims. The plaintiffs object. For the reasons stated in this order, the defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

GALWAY, J. The defendant, Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), appeals, and the plaintiff, Clark & Lavey Benefits Solutions, Inc. (C&L), crossappeals, from rulings of the Trial Court (Groff, J.). We affirm.

Jeffrey Stone (“Stone”) initially instituted this action against defendant New England Document Systems, Inc., f/k/a New England Micrographics, Inc. (“N.E. Docs”)[1] for breach of contract, compelled payment of dividends, freeze-out of a minority shareholder, and judicial dissolution of the corporation. N.E. Docs interposed counterclaims, and moves for judgment on the pleadings as to most of Stone’s claims, and also seeks costs and attorney’s fees. Stone objects. The Court held a hearing on October 23, 2006. Upon consideration of the parties’ oral arguments and written submissions, and as described below, N.E. Docs’ motion is GRANTED only as to Stone’s first breach of contract claim, and his judicial dissolution claim, and no award of costs and attorney’s fees is entered.

Plaintiff asserts four claims against Attorney Groff: negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, all arising from Attorney Groff's alleged duties to plaintiff; and negligence, arising from Attorney Groff's alleged duties to Republic, to which plaintiff is subrogated. The essence of plaintiff's claims is that Walsh was negligent in failing to find and report the Hancock mortgage, that Walsh's negligence is imputable to Attorney Groff, and that Attorney Groff is liable for his own negligence.