In re Estate of Jack Michael Bergquist
166 N.H. 531
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Eddie Nash & Sons obtained a default small-claims money judgment against Jack Bergquist in Colebrook District Court in Feb. 2002 for $5,136.99 (including costs and interest).
- In 2003 the district court entered a periodic payment order under RSA 524:6-a requiring $50/month beginning May 2003 until the judgment and costs were paid; the order listed total due as $5,394.26 (an unexplained increase).
- Debtor paid monthly until May 2011 and died; petitioner filed a creditor’s claim against the estate seeking the remaining balance plus statutory post-judgment interest.
- The estate conceded $544.21 was owed under the periodic payment order but objected to post-judgment interest, arguing the periodic order was silent and interest was not awarded.
- The probate division allowed only $544.21 and excluded post-judgment interest; petitioner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory post-judgment interest accrues on a money judgment even if the original judgment/order is silent | Nash: statutory post-judgment interest attaches as a matter of law and should be included | Estate: no explicit award in the judgment/order, so interest should be excluded | Court: Judgment creditors are entitled to continuing post-judgment interest as a matter of law until paid in full; probate erred in excluding it |
| Whether petitioner’s claim for interest is barred by res judicata | Nash: claim enforces rights under the existing judgment, not a new cause of action | Estate: same transaction as original suit, so claim could/should have been litigated earlier | Court: Not barred — enforcing an existing judgment is not a new cause of action for res judicata purposes |
| Whether allowing interest conflicts with RSA 524:6-a (periodic payments) | Nash: periodic payments do not eliminate right to interest; interest compensates for time value of money | Estate: periodic payment order fixes amount due and should preclude additional post-judgment interest | Court: RSA 524:6-a permits periodic payments but does not alter rights; interest must continue and is required under a periodic payment order |
| Whether plaintiff needed to request interest explicitly in the original action | Nash: no, entitlement is statutory and does not require specific trial-court request | Estate: petitioner did not seek interest earlier and lacked opportunity to litigate | Court: entitlement is legal and automatic; explicit request was unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Nault v. N & L Dev. Co., 146 N.H. 35 (plaintiff may recover statutory post-judgment interest even if original judgment is silent)
- Lombard v. Company, 78 N.H. 280 (historical practice of allowing post-judgment interest)
- Sheedy v. Merrimack Cty. Super. Ct., 128 N.H. 51 (RSA 524:6-a provides an alternative method of payment, not a new source of payment)
- Quality Carpets v. Carter, 133 N.H. 887 (legislative history: RSA 524:6-a codified courts’ inherent power to order periodic payments)
- Hansa Consult of N. Am. v. Hansaconsult Ingenieurgesellschaft, 163 N.H. 46 (definition of a cause of action for res judicata analysis)
- Appeal of Morrissey, 165 N.H. 87 (res judicata prevents relitigation of matters actually litigated or that could have been litigated)
Decision: Reversed and remanded — probate division must allow petitioner’s statutory post-judgment interest in addition to the $544.21 balance.