Robert Carr & a. v. Town of New London
161 A.3d 753
| N.H. | 2017Background
- In 2014 Carr owned a New London house that burned down on July 1, 2014; he sold the parcel later that year to Raoul & Karen, LLC.
- The Town assessed the destroyed house at $688,000 for the 2014 tax year (assessment date April 1).
- RSA 76:21 (enacted 2013) provides a 60-day window to apply for a prorated assessment when a building is rendered unusable by fire or natural disaster; it also states it does not limit abatements under RSA 76:16.
- Petitioners did not apply under RSA 76:21’s 60-day rule; instead they sought an abatement under RSA 76:16 (good cause) about six months after the fire.
- The Town denied the RSA 76:16 petition as untimely and argued RSA 76:21 is the exclusive remedy for post–April 1 fire loss; petitioners appealed and the superior court granted summary judgment for petitioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post–April 1 fire damage may justify an abatement under RSA 76:16 | Petitioners: RSA 76:16 allows abatements for good cause including post–April 1 destruction | Town: Assessment fixed as of April 1; only RSA 76:21 prorations apply for post–April 1 damage | Held: Post–April 1 fire loss can be "good cause" under RSA 76:16 |
| Whether RSA 76:21 precludes resort to RSA 76:16 for fire-related losses | Petitioners: RSA 76:21 expressly preserves RSA 76:16 relief (§ VI) | Town: RSA 76:21 provides exclusive statutory scheme for such losses; § VI merely preserves unrelated uses of RSA 76:16 | Held: RSA 76:21 § VI shows legislature did not displace RSA 76:16; both remedies can apply |
| Whether interpreting RSA 76:16 to cover fire loss renders RSA 76:21 superfluous | Petitioners: §21 provides a streamlined prorating but does not eliminate broader equitable relief under §16 | Town: Allowing §16 makes §21 meaningless | Held: Both statutes can operate together; §21 offers a mandatory prorated option while §16 offers broader equitable relief |
| Whether the trial court abused equity or violated preemption by granting abatement | Petitioners: Equitable principles support §16 abatements; no preemption | Town: Court improperly supplanted statutory rules; preemption concern | Held: No preemption or derogation; equitable RSA 76:16 relief remains valid alongside RSA 76:21 |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Hood, 127 N.H. 824 (court denied exemption where relevant event occurred after April 1)
- Barksdale v. Town of Epsom, 136 N.H. 511 (discusses limits of RSA 76:16 abatements)
- Briggs' Petition, 29 N.H. 547 (1854) (historic recognition that loss after assessment can support "good cause" abatements)
- GGP Steeplegate v. City of Concord, 150 N.H. 683 (2004) (RSA 76:16 construed liberally in favor of remedial justice)
- State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146 (2008) (statutory interpretation should avoid rendering language superfluous)