Ruel v. New Hampshire Real Estate Appraiser Board
163 N.H. 34
N.H.2011Background
- Ruel, a licensed real estate appraiser, was investigated by the Board after a DOT eminent-domain appraisal dispute involving Frederick.
- DOT valued the property lower than Ruel’s appraisal; LeMay reviewed the appraisal and lodged a grievance with the Board on Sept. 25, 2007.
- The Board investigated through two periods, settling with Ruel in 2009 and then scheduling a hearing for December 2009.
- Ruel attended hearings; a Board member left during his testimony, and the Board issued a final order in April 2010 imposing a $500 fine and two courses.
- Ruel sought certiorari; the superior court remanded for a new hearing due to lack of quorum; Ruel challenges standing, timing, prejudice, and witnesses.
- Ruel appeals, arguing LeMay lacked standing, improper time limits, material prejudice from delay, due-process concerns from a non-quorum ruling, and a challenge to Shea’s qualifications; he also seeks attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to file the grievance | Ruel claims LeMay lacked standing | Board contends broad standing under statute/regulations | Grievance standing permitted; no restrictive standing rule applied |
| Timeliness and jurisdiction | Board failed to act within 90 days per 310-B:17-a II and 310-B:19 | Time limits are not jurisdictional, only mandatory | Delay did not strip Board of jurisdiction |
| Material prejudice from delay | Delay harmed memory, opportunities, costs | Prejudice not shown; delay attributable in part to Ruel | No material prejudice; court upholding remand |
| Due process and quorum | Hearing without five-member quorum violated due process | Remand appropriate; no dismissal required | Remand for new hearing; no dismissal required |
| Admissibility of Shea’s testimony | Shea not qualified; failure to inspect property undermines testimony | Agency has discretion; Rab rules allow testimony from experienced appraisers | Admissible; no error in admitting Shea’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Fournier, 158 N.H. 441 (2009) (time limits not jurisdictional where general interest in adjudication acceleration)
- Smith, 138 N.H. 548 (1994) (speedy disposition aids public interests, not liberty; jurisdiction not lost)
- Town of Derry, 148 N.H. 512 (2002) (certiorari review limited; due process concerns require prejudice show)
- Robyn W., 124 N.H. 377 (1983) (no jurisdiction loss for statutory deadlines absent prejudice)
- Appeal of Omega Entm’t, 156 N.H. 282 (2007) (due process requires prejudice showing for delay claim)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (time prescriptions are not always jurisdictional; depends on legislative intent)