J & M Lumber & Construction Co. v. Smyjunas
161 N.H. 714
| N.H. | 2011Background
- J & M pursued an equity action in 2000 and, in 2003–2004, obtained an order for Gorham Supermarket to pay attorney's fees and costs, affirmed on appeal.
- In 2005 the trial court calculated J & M's fees and costs at $110,007.01.
- In 2008 J & M filed suit against Smyjunas (and previously against Gorham Supermarket and related entities) seeking recovery of those fees and costs due to improper dissolution and asset depletion.
- Before trial, J & M dismissed its claims against Gorham Supermarket, Bitsy Realty, and Tolle Road; Smyjunas became the sole defendant.
- Jury verdict in J & M's favor awarded $110,007.01; post-trial disputes concerned prejudgment interest on this amount.
- The trial court awarded prejudgment interest only from J & M's 2008 writ; both sides challenged timing and basis of interest awards on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of J & M's improper dissolution and unjust enrichment claims | J & M timely under discovery rule; injury and causation known later. | Claims untimely; discovery rule not satisfied and laches arguments dismissed. | Timeliness rejected; discovery rule did not apply for lack of injury in 2002; laches not preserved. |
| Collateral estoppel and jury instruction regarding notice of easement | Notice already decided; no relitigation of notice. | Trial error; improper to preclude relitigation and misinstruction. | Error could be harmless; no reversal because instruction did not affect outcome. |
| Admission of Smyjunas's 1998 IRS account transcript | Transcript probative to show depletion of assets and justify piercing veil. | High income figure prejudicial and lack of probative value. | Court properly admitted; probative value outweighed prejudice; not clearly untenable. |
| Expert witness disclosure and sanctions | Second disclosure expanded opinions; trial court should allow. | First disclosure insufficient under RSA 516:29-b; unfair surprise from second disclosure. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; permitted expert testimony related to corporate finances and winding up. |
| Prejudgment and post-judgment interest timing and entitlement | Interest should run from 2000 writ or from 2005 orders; RSA 524:1-a and 1-b apply. | Interest for 2000 writ and 2005 judgments should have been pleaded and proved as damages; request denied. | Affirmed denial of pre- and post-judgment interest from 2000/2005; allowed prejudgment interest from 2008 writ only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., 160 N.H. 708 (2010) (discovery rule viability requires knowing injury and causation)
- Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419 (2010) (discovery and disclosure standards; appellate review of discovery rulings)
- Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 154 N.H. 662 (2006) (compliance with expert disclosure requirements)
- In re Nicholas L., 158 N.H. 700 (2009) (RSA 516:29-b disclosure requirements for experts)
- Centronics Corp. v. Genicom Corp., 132 N.H. 133 (1989) (good faith obligation imposed in contract; implied duties)
- Cloutier v. A & P Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915 (1981) (scope of implied good faith obligation in contracts)
- Carbone v. Tierney, 151 N.H. 521 (2004) (damages inclusion of interest as an element to prove)
- N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421 (2009) (standard for admitting and weighing evidence; abuse of discretion standard)
- Zola v. Kelley, 149 N.H. 648 (2003) (unfair prejudice balancing in evidence rulings)