Richard Holt & a. v. Gary Keer & a. Gary Keer & a. v. Richard Holt & a.
167 N.H. 232
| N.H. | 2015Background
- Boston Four Condominium: four freestanding units with recorded declaration and site plan; common area held as equal one-fourth undivided interests; some parking spaces designated limited common area.
- Keers own Unit 7; Holt owned Units 7R and later 9R (sold to Banacos in 2012); other owners include Guthrie (sold Unit 9) and later Barnicoat.
- Disputes over use of common area, additions, and parking led to arbitration; arbitrator prohibited Holt/tenants from double-parking in Unit 9R space and apportioned sewer costs.
- Trial court confirmed the arbitration award in 2009 and warned that noncompliance could lead to contempt findings.
- In 2012 the association recorded an amendment converting certain common-area patio/walkway areas into limited common area for Units 7R and 9R without the Keers’ consent; Keers moved for contempt and argued the amendment violated RSA ch. 356-B (the Condominium Act).
- Trial court denied the Keers’ contempt motions and motion for reconsideration; Keers appealed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding the 2012 amendment violated RSA 356-B:19 and that the trial court failed to address the statutory claim.
Issues
| Issue | Keer(s) Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 amendment converting common area into limited common area complied with the Condominium Act | The amendment improperly converted common area to limited common area without unanimous consent of adversely affected owners and thus violated RSA ch. 356-B | The amendment was valid because RSA 356-B:19(III) allows creation/expansion of limited common area by 2/3 vote (three of four owners) and the declaration permits amendments by a three-owner majority | Court held the 2012 amendment unlawful: conversion of common area to limited common area that altered owners’ rights required unanimous consent of adversely affected owners under RSA 356-B:19(I); the 2/3 exception does not override that protection |
| Proper interpretation of RSA 356-B:19 — interaction of subsections I and III | RSA protections require unanimous consent where rights are altered and cannot be bypassed by a 2/3 amendment | 2/3 clause permits reassignment by less than unanimous vote when declaration allows a 3-owner amendment | Court interpreted the statutes harmoniously: the 2/3 clause applies only when creation/expansion does not adversely affect existing owners’ rights; it does not permit reassignments that alter rights without unanimous consent |
| Whether the Keers preserved their statutory challenge for appeal | Keers had raised statutory challenge in motions for contempt and reconsideration before the trial court | Respondents argued briefing/formal-reference defects warranted striking the Keers’ brief for preservation failures | Court concluded issues were preserved on the record; declined to strike Keers’ brief as form-over-substance and proceeded to review the statutory claim |
| Whether trial court’s denial of contempt was an unsustainable exercise of discretion | Trial court failed to address statutory claim and mischaracterized Keers’ filings as mere challenges to prior rulings | Trial court viewed motions as repetitive and declined further relief | Court found the trial court erred by not addressing the statutory argument and vacated and remanded the contempt denial for reconsideration in light of the statutory ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Camire v. Gunstock Area Comm’n, 166 N.H. 374 (2014) (trial forums should have chance to rule on issues before appeal)
- In the Matter of Giacomini & Giacomini, 150 N.H. 498 (2003) (contempt power is discretionary; review for unsustainable exercise of discretion)
- Lillie-Putz Trust v. Downeast Energy Corp., 160 N.H. 716 (2010) (standard for showing unsustainable exercise of discretion)
- EnergyNorth Natural Gas v. City of Concord, 164 N.H. 14 (2012) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and statutes are read in context)
- Appeal of Local Gov’t Ctr., 165 N.H. 790 (2014) (construe statutes to effectuate overall purpose and avoid absurd results)
- Weare Land Use Ass’n v. Town of Weare, 153 N.H. 510 (2006) (legislature not presumed to enact statutes producing absurd or nullifying results)
- Winnacunnet Coop. Sch. Dist. v. Town of Seabrook, 148 N.H. 519 (2002) (give effect to all words in statute; avoid rendering parts superfluous)
- In the Matter of Martel & Martel, 157 N.H. 53 (2008) (vacatur of contempt denial where trial court erred in factual basis for denial)