Amanda Colburn v. Nicholas Saykaly & a.
173 N.H. 162
N.H.2020Background
- Parties lived in an original single-family home owned by Colburn, later moved to a marital home owned by Saykaly; both properties were treated as marital property.
- Colburn filed for divorce (Mar 2018); family division issued a temporary order letting Colburn reside in the marital home and directing Colburn to manage and receive rents from the original home.
- Colburn discovered E. coli contamination in the original home’s well, sought to remove occupants for health reasons, served eviction notices to Saykaly and his brother, and filed for a writ of possession in the district division.
- Saykaly defended by arguing the district division lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the property was marital and the divorce was pending in the family division; he also contended he was not a statutory "tenant."
- The district court issued a writ of possession (stating the order was without prejudice to divorce rights); Saykaly appealed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family division has exclusive jurisdiction over marital property during a pending divorce | Colburn: eviction concerns possession only; district division can decide possession without affecting equitable distribution | Saykaly: once a divorce is filed the family division has exclusive jurisdiction over marital property | Court: RSA 490-D:2 does not grant blanket exclusive jurisdiction over spouses' assets; district division has jurisdiction to hear eviction |
| Whether eviction jurisdiction requires a landlord-tenant relationship (tenant status) | Colburn: RSA ch. 540 allows recovery from "lessee, occupant, mortgagor, or other person in possession"; eviction proper against occupant | Saykaly: he is not a "tenant" under RSA 540-A and thus district court lacks jurisdiction | Court: RSA 540-A (prohibited practices) not implicated; RSA 540 permits recovery from occupants, so jurisdiction was proper |
| Whether a bright-line or "first-in-time" rule gives family division exclusive control once it acts on marital property | Colburn: no statutory bright-line rule; circuit court divisions are meant to be flexible and may defer as needed | Saykaly: urges a bright-line/first-in-time rule and cites Sullivan v. Algrem | Court: rejects bright-line/first-in-time rule as unsupported by RSA ch. 490-F; circuit court flexibility governs; Sullivan is inapposite |
Key Cases Cited
- Maldini v. Maldini, 168 N.H. 191 (2015) (statutory interpretation and subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- In re Search Warrant for Records of AT & T, 170 N.H. 111 (2017) (background on creation and structure of the New Hampshire circuit court)
- Estate of Croteau v. Croteau, 143 N.H. 177 (1998) (New Hampshire does not recognize tenancy by the entirety)
- Rafferty v. State, 107 N.H. 387 (1966) (discussion of practical flexibility in judicial administration)
- Sullivan v. Algrem, 160 F. 366 (8th Cir. 1908) (older federal case relied on by defendant but deemed inapposite)