Claude Montambeault v. Claudia Werner et al.

[PDF page 1] THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0061, Claude Montambeault v. Claudia Werner & a., the court on January 30, 2018, issued the following order: The defendants, Claudia Werner, Eric Werner, and Johanne Edward Montambeault, appeal a decision of the 4th Circuit Court–Laconia District Division (Carroll, J.) awarding the plaintiff, Claude Montambeault, a writ of possession. We vacate and remand. The record shows that on or about October 29, 2016, the plaintiff served the defendants with an eviction notice, notifying them to vacate the residential premises because he wished to use it for his personal residence. On December 22, 2016, after a hearing, the district division ruled that the plaintiff had established ownership of the property, had stated valid grounds for the eviction, and had provided the defendants adequate notice. The district division also ruled that the defendants provided insufficient evidence of an agreement to transfer the property to defendant Claudia Werner, the plaintiff’s daughter. At the start of the eviction hearing, the district division acknowledged having received a statement regarding an agreement to pay “the rent, the taxes, and the homeowners insurance, et cetera.” Although the statement is not included in the appellate record, Eric Werner testified at the hearing that he and his wife, Claudia, had been living in the premises since 2004, and that for 13 or 14 years, they had paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the property pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiff that when the mortgage was discharged, he would transfer title to the property to Claudia. The district division ruled that the defendants provided insufficient evidence to support such a claim. On appeal, the defendants argue that the district division erred by: (1) failing to provide the defendants with an opportunity to enter their plea of title in the superior court; (2) resolving an issue over which it lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) failing to provide the defendants, as self-represented litigants, sufficient leniency in pleading requirements. “The district division of the circuit court is a court of limited jurisdiction with powers conferred upon it by statute.” Friedline v. Roe, 166 N.H. 264, 266 (2014); RSA 502-A:14 (2010) (identifying jurisdiction of district court in civil cases); RSA 490-F:3 (Supp. 2017) (conferring upon circuit courts powers and duties of former district courts). “[I]t does not have jurisdiction to resolve [PDF page 2] 2 issues of title.” Friedline, 166 N.H. at 266. Title issues must be resolved in the superior court. Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608, 611 (2013). Consequently, if a defendant raises a plea of title in a possessory action, the district division must provide the defendant with an opportunity to enter his or her action in the superior court. Friedline, 166 N.H. at 267-68; see RSA 540:17,:18 (2007) (setting forth procedures for district division to follow when defendant raises a title issue). In this case, the defendants pleaded that they paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the property pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiff to transfer title to Claudia. The defendants’ claim constituted a plea of title. See Friedline, 166 N.H. at 268 (claim to life estate is a plea of title); Blevens v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 116 N.H. 247, 247 (1976) (easement claim is a plea of title). The district division denied the defendants’ title claim on the merits, ruling that “there was insufficient evidence of an agreement as to the process of transferring the property to [the plaintiff’s] daughter who presently resides there.” However, the district division lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the title claim. See Friedline, 166 N.H. at 266; Schultz, 164 N.H. at 611. Moreover, by so ruling, the district division deprived the defendants of their opportunity to file their plea of title in superior court. See Friedline, 166 N.H. at 268. Accordingly, we vacate the district division’s order and remand for the division to provide the defendants an opportunity to file their plea of title in the superior court. In light of our decision, we need not address the defendants’ remaining issues. See Antosz v. Allain, 163 N.H. 298, 302 (2012) (declining to address parties’ other arguments where holding on one issue is dispositive). Vacated and remanded. LYNN, BASSETT, and HANTZ MARCONI, JJ., concurred. Eileen Fox, Clerk