Bank of New York Mellon v. Cataldo
161 N.H. 135
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Bank foreclosed on defendants' property in December 2008 and filed eviction in district court.
- Defendants filed a plea of title; district court ordered title action to be pursued in superior court by Dec 1, 2009.
- Defendants did not file in superior court; district court entered judgment for bank, noting title issues cannot be decided there.
- Defendants appeal challenging district court's handling of title issue and possessory judgment.
- Court discusses RSA 540:17–18 and related statutes, distinguishing title proceedings from possessory actions.
- Court holds that failure to file title action after district court’s order allows possessory action to resume in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of filing plea of title on district court proceedings | Cataldo required to recognize and proceed to superior court. | District court should stop possessory proceedings upon plea. | Possessory action can resume if title action not filed. |
| Statutory interpretation of RSA 540:17–18 | Defendant must recognize and enter action in superior court; district court stay applies. | District court should have transferred or halted proceedings differently. | District court’s order complied with 540:18 and stay was conditional on recognizing action. |
| District court authority to award possession where title is at issue | Court can adjudicate possession notwithstanding title issues as separate themes. | Court cannot decide possession if title is in dispute in district court. | District court can adjudicate possessory actions even where title is contested. |
| Evidence of ownership in possessory action when title action not filed | Bank ownership evidence may be considered; defendant's failure barred title relevance. | Evidence should be excluded due to title not properly pursued in district court. | Issue not preserved; any error harmless; evidence properly excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kenison v. Dubois, 152 N.H. 448 (N.H. 2005) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Dalton Hydro v. Town of Dalton, 153 N.H. 75 (N.H. 2005) (clear statutory meaning controls)
- Appeal of Carnahan, 149 N.H. 433 (N.H. 2003) (absurd results avoided in statutory construction)
- LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252 (N.H. 2006) (preservation and scope of issues on appeal)
- Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248 (N.H. 2004) (burden on appealing parties to raise issues below)