94 A.3d 279
N.H.2014Background
- Defendant Eugene Roe purchased property in 1959 and continued to live there; title passed through Brookwood Ecology Center and by deed to his son, Zebadiah Kellogg‑Roe, in 2004, who later conveyed a 20% interest to Leigh Mae Friedline in 2009.
- Kellogg‑Roe gave Friedline a durable power of attorney.
- Friedline served Roe with a 30‑day eviction notice signed only by her; plaintiffs then filed a landlord‑tenant possessory writ in the circuit (district) division.
- Roe filed a plea of title asserting (1) a life‑estate agreement entitling him to occupy the house for life and (2) that Brookwood retained title, challenging plaintiffs’ ownership.
- The district division conducted a hearing, found Friedline acted for both owners by power of attorney, rejected Roe’s life‑estate claim under the Statute of Frauds, upheld the 1999 deed to Roe as valid, and awarded plaintiffs a writ of possession.
- Roe appealed; the Supreme Court reviewed whether the district division had jurisdiction to hear title issues and whether the unsigned (by Kellogg‑Roe) eviction notice was fatal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Friedline/Kellogg‑Roe) | Defendant's Argument (Roe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plea of title filed in district division requires the defendant be given opportunity to enter action in superior court and post recognizance | District court may proceed because no sufficient evidence supported Roe’s title claims | Roe argued his plea of title required transfer/recognizance procedure under RSA 540:17–:18 and thus superior court jurisdiction | Court: District division must give defendant opportunity to promise to enter action in superior court and, if ordered, enter recognizance; failure to do so was error (vacated and remanded) |
| Whether the district division exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on the merits of Roe’s title/equitable claims | Plaintiffs defended the court’s merits rulings as proper given lack of evidence | Roe argued district court lacked jurisdiction to resolve title/equity matters | Court: District division lacked authority to resolve title or equitable claims; it erred by deciding merits of the life‑estate claim |
| Validity of eviction notice signed only by Friedline (not by co‑owner Kellogg‑Roe) | Friedline argued she acted for both owners under durable power of attorney; notice was sufficient | Roe argued Moore v. Hill required all owners’ signatures and that notice was invalid without Kellogg‑Roe’s signature | Court: Lack of Kellogg‑Roe’s signature alone did not invalidate the notice; district court correctly found Friedline acted for both owners |
| Enforceability of alleged oral agreement granting Roe a life estate (Statute of Frauds) | Plaintiffs argued oral life‑estate agreement unenforceable under Statute of Frauds; district court ruled against Roe on the merits | Roe contended he had a life estate based on the agreement tied to the 2004 conveyance | Court: Because the district division lacked jurisdiction to resolve title/equity, it should not have adjudicated the Statute of Frauds/life‑estate issue; the proper forum is superior court |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway Automotive Group v. Lucic, 163 A.3d 6 (N.H. 2011) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions; discussed district court limits)
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Cataldo, 161 N.H. 135 (2010) (statutory interpretation principles and district court procedures when title is challenged)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Kevlik, 161 N.H. 800 (2011) (district court lacks jurisdiction to resolve title issues)
- Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (1991) (equity and title questions are for superior court)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013) (reaffirming that district divisions cannot resolve title challenges)
- Gibson v. LaClair, 135 N.H. 129 (1991) (recognizing life‑estate claims as title challenges)
- Blevens v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 116 N.H. 247 (1976) (title issues may be raised by plea of title)
- Moore v. Hill, 97 N.H. 40 (1951) (discussed owner signatures on eviction notices; court did not hold all owners must sign)