131 A.3d 950
N.H.2016Background
- Freddie Mac purchased Willette’s Pembroke property at a foreclosure sale in Feb 2013 and thereafter filed a landlord-and-tenant (possessory) writ in the district division seeking possession.
- Willette filed the recognizance required by RSA 540:17 and then initiated a separate title action in superior court.
- Freddie Mac removed Willette’s superior-court title action to federal district court; the federal court dismissed Willette’s title action.
- Freddie Mac moved in superior court for a writ of possession and was denied; it then sought a hearing in the district division on the possessory writ.
- The district division issued the writ of possession; Willette appealed, arguing lack of district-division jurisdiction and that Freddie Mac could not obtain possession after the title-action proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district division retained jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession after defendant filed a title action in superior court | District division retained jurisdiction to act on the possessory writ after the title action was resolved (dismissed in federal court) | Filing a title action (and recognizance) invoked RSA 540:18 so that "no further proceedings" could be had in the district division, depriving it of jurisdiction | Court held RSA 540:18 does not strip the district division of jurisdiction permanently; it merely prevents the division from deciding title and stays possession proceedings until the title action is resolved; after resolution, the district division may act on possession |
| Whether the possessory action was transferred to or consolidated in superior court, barring district-division action | Freddie Mac argued no transfer/consolidation occurred; the district division retained the possessory action | Willette argued the parties agreed to transfer the case to superior court such that the district division lost jurisdiction | Court found record showed no transfer or consolidation; district division’s earlier grant was clarified as erroneous and Willette bore the burden to file a separate superior-court action |
| Whether dismissal of Willette’s title action in federal court precludes issuance of a district-division writ of possession | Freddie Mac argued dismissal permits resumption of possessory proceedings | Willette argued dismissal was fatal to Freddie Mac’s ability to obtain possession (premised on alleged transfer) | Court rejected Willette’s premise (no transfer); dismissal does not bar district-division issuance of writ after title resolution |
| Waiver/forum-shopping arguments | Freddie Mac had not waived remedies; seeking writ in district division after superior-court denial was proper | Willette argued Freddie Mac waived judgment or engaged in forum shopping by seeking writ after superior-court denial | Court declined to address in detail and found these arguments insufficient to overturn the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedline v. Roe, 166 N.H. 264 (N.H. 2014) (describing district division’s limited jurisdiction and possessory action procedures under RSA chapter 540)
- Petition of Eskeland, 166 N.H. 554 (N.H. 2014) (principles of statutory interpretation; legislative intent from statute text)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (N.H. 1993) (court discretion to decline extended discussion of arguments lacking merit)