Langevin v. Hillsborough County
| Decision Date | 31 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 6638,6638 |
| Citation | 114 N.H. 317,320 A.2d 635 |
| Parties | William LANGEVIN et al. v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Rinden & Tarrant and Eleanor Krasnow (Paul A. Rinden, Concord, orally, for plaintiff.
James A. Connor, County Atty., and William E. Brennan, Asst. County Atty., for defendant.
Petition by William and Virginia Langevin seeking an order requiring the commissioners of Hillsborough County to immediately release a lien filed against their real estate in Contoocook to permit its sale. The Trial Court (Johnson, J.) ordered the discharge 'without prejudice to the rights of the County to proceed against the net proceeds of a proposed sale' which were to be held in escrow pending a determination of the rights of the parties. Plaintiffs were also ordered to amend their petition 'to present the issue of the validity of defendant's claim.' The property was sold and the net proceeds of $4,450.52 were deposited with the clerk of the superior court.
A hearing on the merits of the county's claim held before Keller, C.J. resulted in certain findings and rulings and a decree ordering the clerk to distribute one-half of the funds held to Hillsborough County and the other half to Virginia Langevin. She has since received her share and is not a party to this appeal. William's exceptions to the findings, rulings and decree were reserved and transferred.
William had six children by a prior marriage. The divorce decree granted their custody to both parents and an order for their support was entered against the father. On September 3, 1963, the Manchester District Court found the six children to be neglected and awarded their custody to the division of welfare. RSA 169:10 (Supp.1973). It is agreed that in accordance with the order of that court 'the children were provided foster care and Hillsborough County, as the legally chargeable unit, was required to assume the cost of the support and foster care.' On November 9, 1972, when the matter was heard in superior court, the balance due the county for their support and foster care was $15,139.57. This amount reflects a payment of $1,004.13 made by William in partial satisfaction of the support order made in the divorce proceedings. RSA 169:11 provides as follows: 'Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the expense for the maintenance and care of any such (neglected) child shall be borne by the town in which the child resides, and the town shall have a right of action over for such expenses against whoever is legally chargeable for the child's support.' Because of the order of the district court, the county has this right of action.
To enforce this obligation, the county in April 1969, recorded in the registry of deeds a lien against the real estate of the plaintiffs in Contoocook which was the subject matter of their petition against the county in the present case. In its brief the county takes the position that their action resulted in a valid lien under RSA 166:20 (Supp.1973). This section provides in part that: 'The amount of money spent by a county to support a county pauper . . . shall . . . be made a lien on any real estate owned by the county pauper.' Relying on the cases of Croydon v. Sullivan, 47 N.H. 179 (1866) and Gilmanton v. Sanbornton, 56 N.H. 336 (1876), the county maintains that, because it supported his children, William could not obtain a settlement elsewhere and was therefore a county pauper and his real estate was subject to such a lien for the payments made. The plaintiff strongly opposes this contention claiming that William had obtained a settlement before the county started paying for the care of the children. It is unnecessary, however, to decide this issue which has 'presented sticky problems' for towns and counties (Ebelt v. Ebelt, 103 N.H. 369, 371, 172 A.2d 363, 365 (1961)) as the existence or not of a lien is not material to the disposition of the case.
It is clear that the aid which the county provided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor
...will order to be done that which in fairness and good conscience ought to be or should have been done." Langevin v. Hillsborough County , 114 N.H. 317, 320, 320 A.2d 635, 636 (1974). "It is the practice of courts of equity, having jurisdiction, to administer all relief which the nature of t......
-
Natural Harmony, Inc. v. Normand
...been done." Peninsula Methodist Homes & Hospital, Inc. v. Cropper, 256 Md. 728, 737, 261 A.2d 787 (1970); Langevin v. Hillsborough County, 114 N.H. 317, 320, 320 A.2d 635 (1974); 2 J. Pomeroy, supra, § 365. "Equity always looks to the substance of a transaction and not to mere form"; Connec......
-
White v. Ford
...498:5-a. For the plaintiff to invoke the court's equitable power to quiet title, he must also act equitably. Langevin v. Hillsborough County, 114 N.H. 317, 320 A.2d 635 (1974); Fowler v. Taylor, 97 N.H. 294, 297, 86 A.2d 325, 326 (1952); see also, Gosselin v. Archibald, 121 N.H. 1016, 1020,......
-
Wilson v. Came, 7377
...the plaintiffs to prevent unjust enrichment by the defendant as a result of his negligent misrepresentation. Langevin v. Hillsborough County, 114 N.H. 317, 320 A.2d 635 (1974). Plaintiffs' exceptions sustained. Remanded for assessment of amount of BOIS, J., did not sit; the others concurred. ...