2009-600, HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Inc. v. Kevin F. MacMillan & a.

The respondents, Kevin F. MacMillan, individually and as

Kevin F. MacMillan, by brief, pro se.

brief), for the petitioner. Hastings Law Office, P.A., of Fryeburg, Maine (Peter J. Malia, Jr. on the to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address:

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC.

No. 2009-600 editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Carroll Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as resolved by a jury at the time of the adoption of the constitution” in 1784.

motion, and this appeal followed. not appeal under RSA 547:11-d. The trial court granted the petitioner’s a statutory right to a trial by jury in a quiet title action, the respondents could right does not extend to controversies concerning property that were “not developed into a remedy “calling heavily upon the court’s equity powers,”

method of procedure shall be held sacred . . . .

deprives equity of all jurisdiction.”

the bench, not to a jury. law in 1784, see id. at 31-36. Gilman, 159 N.H. at 36 (Hicks, J., concurring), it was decided in an action at dismiss the appeal, arguing that because there was neither a constitutional nor guarantees a jury trial right “[i]n all controversies concerning property,” the substantial historical evidence, and concluded that, while partition today has jury trial with respect to the petition to quiet title. In Gilman, we examined The respondents rely upon Gilman to argue that they are entitled to a

(1954). estate is involved, the parties have a right to a trial by jury. This

to real estate is involved does not establish the right to a jury trial which

at 30. In 1784, equity matters, as contrasted with actions at law, were tried to

declared, appeal therefrom to the superior court.” The petitioner moved to granted by statute, a person may, at the time judgment by the probate court is Although Part I, Article p. 2 20 of the New Hampshire Constitution generally part: “In cases where a right to jury trial is guaranteed by the constitution or trial court’s construction of constitutional provisions

value in controversy does not exceed $1,500 and no title to real practice is and has been customary and except those in which the between two or more persons except those in which another In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits

Part I, Article p. 2 20 governs civil jury trials and provides, in pertinent part:

Sunapee Props., 159 N.H. p. 2 26, 29 (2009).

superior court pursuant to RSA 547:11-d ( p. 2 2007), which provides, in pertinent Constitution. As the final arbiter of state constitutional disputes, we review the they had no right to a jury trial under Part I, Article 20 of the State The respondents first argue that the trial court erred by concluding that quieted title in the petitioner’s favor.

Thereafter, the respondents appealed the probate court’s order to the

quieting its title to the parcels omitted from the deed. The probate court described only one of the parcels. Thus, the petitioner sought an order p. 3 3

without merit, warranting no further discussion.

RSA 547:11-d, was unavailable to the respondents. the superior court’s decision. The respondents’ remaining arguments are

of third parties.”

BRODERICK, C.J., and DUGGAN, HICKS and CONBOY, JJ., concurred.

p. 3 321, 322 (1993).

Under these circumstances, a right to a jury trial and, thus, an appeal under agree with the petitioner that the alleged conflict does not warrant reversal of

State v. Decker, 1 p. 3 38 N.H. 432, 438 (1994). Accordingly, we

policing the conduct of attorneys, not at creating substantive rights on behalf (2005). “The New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct are aimed at has caused them prejudice. See Broughton v. Proulx, 152 N.H. 549, 55 p. 3 3 to establish how the alleged violation of Rule 1.11 by the petitioner’s counsel Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct title.” 1.11(c). The respondents have failed c, developed “to grant relief by way of quieting title or removal of a cloud from a New The respondents next argue that the superior court erred by failing to was actually interfered with by the adverse claimant. law, except in the narrow class of cases where a plaintiff’s right of possession contrary, title to real estate generally could not be adjudicated in actions at sought relief that would not have been available in an action at law in 1784. may operate as a cloud upon the title of the owner”). Here, the petitioner 270 (1867) (“[c]ourts of equity have jurisdiction to remove a title or claim which prevented actions at law to establish title); Tucker v. Kenniston, 47 N.H. 267, 108 (quiet title statute intended for persons whose actual possession of land Dowd v. Gagnon, 104 N.H. 360, 362 (1962); see also Harvey, 73 N.H. at

N.H. 106, 108 (1904). Thus, equity, amplified by statutes such as RSA 547:11-

disputes, like partition actions, were decided in actions at law in 1784. To the The respondents provide no support for their contention that title