Krainewood Shores Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Moultonborough
| Decision Date | 02 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2019-0719,2019-0719 |
| Parties | KRAINEWOOD SHORES ASSOCIATION, INC. & a. v. TOWN OF MOULTONBOROUGH & a. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Julie Connolly Law, PLLC, of Concord (Julie K. Connolly on the brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.
Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon, of Manchester (Matthew R. Serge on the joint brief and orally), for defendant Town of Moultonborough.
Stephan T. Nix, of Gilford, on the joint brief and orally, for defendant TYBX3, LLC.
The plaintiffs, Krainewood Shores Association, Inc. and Black Cat Island Civic Association, appeal a Superior Court (Ignatius, J.) decision to grant the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, Town of Moultonborough (Town) and TYBX3, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint. We affirm the grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, vacate the court's denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We draw the following facts from the trial court's order, supplementing as necessary from other documents in the record. On November 14, 2018, an application was submitted on behalf of TYBX3, LLC, to develop a vacant lot. The application proposed the construction of condominium storage units for the purpose of storing large "toys," such as boats, snowmobiles, and motorcycles. The Town's planning board approved the application on May 8, 2019.
On June 8, the plaintiffs electronically filed in the trial court their appeal of the planning board's decision. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint as it was not timely filed. Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs missed the 30-day deadline imposed by RSA 677:15, I, to file an appeal of a planning board's decision. RSA 677:15, I (2016). While the defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, this time seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the planning board's decision.
The trial court found that the plaintiffs did not bring their action within the 30-day deadline set forth in RSA 677:15, I, divesting the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The trial court ruled that it also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved to reconsider, and this appeal followed.
Generally, in ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court must determine whether the allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ pleadings sufficiently establish a basis upon which relief may be granted. Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Assoc., 142 N.H. 848, 852-53, 711 A.2d 251 (1998). In making this determination, the court would normally accept all facts pleaded by the plaintiffs as true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Atwater v. Town of Plainfield, 160 N.H. 503, 507, 8 A.3d 159 (2010). However, when the motion to dismiss does not challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ legal claim but, instead, raises certain defenses, the trial court must look beyond the plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated allegations and determine, based on the facts, whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated their right to claim relief. Id. An assertion that a claim should be dismissed because the trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim is one such defense. Id.
On appeal, the plaintiffs first argue that they timely filed their appeal of the planning board's decision within the 30-day deadline RSA 677:15, I, imposes. To resolve the issues in this appeal requires that we engage in statutory interpretation. In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the legislature's intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. Great Traditions Home Builders v. O'Connor, 157 N.H. 387, 388, 949 A.2d 724 (2008). We first examine the language found in the statute, and, when possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used. Id. We construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and avoid an absurd or unjust result. Appeal of Estate of Van Lunen, 145 N.H. 82, 86, 750 A.2d 737 (2000). Insofar as reasonably possible, we will construe the various statutory provisions harmoniously. Kierstead v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 160 N.H. 681, 685, 7 A.3d 1268 (2010). If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative intent. Bedford Chapter-Citizens for a Sound Economy v. Sch. Admin. Unit #25, 151 N.H. 612, 614, 867 A.2d 414 (2004). However, if the language is ambiguous or subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, we will examine legislative history. See Attorney General, Dir. of Charitable Trusts v. Loreto Publ'ns, 169 N.H. 68, 74, 142 A.3d 706 (2016).
New Hampshire law requires strict compliance with statutory time requirements for appeals of planning board decisions to the superior court, Prop. Portfolio Group v. Town of Derry, 154 N.H. 610, 613, 913 A.2d 750 (2006), because statutory compliance is a necessary prerequisite to establishing jurisdiction in the superior court. Id. RSA 677:15, I, provides the jurisdictional deadline for superior court review of a planning board decision. Id. It provides, in relevant part:
For its part, RSA 21:35 provides:
The parties disagree as to the meaning of the phrase "[t]he 30-day time period shall be counted in calendar days beginning with the date following the date upon which the planning board voted to approve or disapprove the application, in accordance with RSA 21:35." RSA 677:15, I. The plaintiffs argue that, to give meaning to both parts of this phrase, requiring that the 30-day period begin with the date following that upon which the planning board voted "in accordance with RSA 21:35," the date after the planning board voted must be excluded from the 30-day count. To the plaintiffs, "in accordance with RSA 21:35" constitutes a directive to exclude from the 30-day count the date upon which the 30-day count begins (the day after the planning board voted). Thus, under the plaintiffs’ interpretation, although the 30-day appeal period began to run on May 9 (the day after the planning board voted), that day must be excluded from the calculation of the 30-day period. Accordingly, to the plaintiffs, the 30-day period would have expired on June 8, but because June 8 was a Saturday, the period actually expired on Monday, June 10. See RSA 21:35, II. Therefore, they reason, their electronically-filed June 8 appeal was timely.
The defendants counter that the phrase "in accordance with RSA 21:35" is an explanation, rather than a directive. To the defendants, the phrase makes clear that beginning the 30-day period on the date after the planning board made its decision complies with RSA 21:35. Under the defendants’ interpretation, the 30-day appeal period began to run on May 9 — the day after the planning board voted — and expired on June 7, rendering the plaintiffs’ appeal filed the next day untimely.
Although both statutory interpretations are reasonable, we find the defendants’ interpretation to be more consistent with the plain meaning of the pertinent statutes than the plaintiffs’ interpretation. The plain meaning of "in accordance with" is "in agreement or harmony with; in conformity to." The Oxford English Dictionary 83 (2d ed. 1989). RSA 677:15, I, thus provides that counting the beginning of the 30-day appeal period on the date after the day of the planning board vote is "in agreement with" RSA 21:35, I.
RSA 21:35, I, provides a method for counting a time period that applies "[e]xcept where specifically stated to the contrary." According to the method in RSA 21:35, I, when a time period "is to be reckoned" from a certain date, that date is excluded from the computation of the time period. RSA 21:35, I. In this context, the plain meaning of the word "reckoned" is "[t]o count or calculate from; to calculate or keep count of, in relation to some starting-point or base." The Oxford English Dictionary, supra at 335.
Under RSA 677:15, I, the fixed basis by which the appeal period is to be determined is the date of the planning board decision. Consistent with RSA 21:35, I, RSA 677:15, I, provides that that date is excluded from the computation of the 30-day appeal period. Computing the 30-day appeal period by excluding the day on which the planning board voted (the day of reckoning) is "in agreement with" RSA 21:35, I. The Oxford English Dictionary, supra at 83.
Had the legislature intended the phrase "in accordance with RSA 21:35" to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiPietro v. Coldiron
...The plain meaning of "in accordance with" is "in agreement or harmony with; in conformity to." Krainewood Shores Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Moultonborough , 174 N.H. 103, 260 A.3d 804, 808 (2021) (quoting The Oxford English Dictionary 83 (2d ed. 1989)). By including this phrase in section 24-72......