New London Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Newport

• Decision Date: 09 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2019-0616,2019-0616
• Citation: 174 N.H. 68,260 A.3d 18
• Parties: The NEW LONDON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TOWN OF NEWPORT
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

174 N.H. 68

260 A.3d 18

The NEW LONDON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC.

v.TOWN OF NEWPORT

No. 2019-0616

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: October 20, 2020

Opinion Issued: February 9, 2021

Devine, Millimet & Branch, Professional Association, of Manchester (Matthew R. Johnson and Lynnette V. Macomber on the brief, and Mr. Johnson orally), for the plaintiff.

Hage Hodes, P.A., of Manchester (Jamie N. Hage and Katherine E. Hedges on the brief, and Mr. Hage orally), and Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon, of Lebanon (Adele M. Fulton and Matthew C. Decker on the brief), for the defendant.

HANTZ MARCONI, J.

The plaintiff, The New London Hospital Association, Inc. (Hospital), challenges orders of the Superior Court (Tucker, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Town of Newport (Town), in the Hospital's appeal from the Town's denial of the Hospital's application for a charitable tax exemption and denying the Hospital's motion to amend its complaint. We affirm.

I.

The trial court found, or the record supports, the following facts. The Hospital owns and operates the Newport Health Center located in Newport. On May 19, 2016, the Hospital filed a Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) Form A-9 with the Town to claim a charitable tax exemption for tax year 2016. Pursuant to RSA 72:23-c, I (2012), the Form A-9 must be filed annually on or before April 15. At a meeting held on August 29, 2016, the Newport Board of Selectmen (board) voted to deny the Hospital's application for the 2016 tax year "because the application for the exemption was untimely and because the level of charity care provided by the hospital is very small and it is a fee for service operation." The Town informed the Hospital of the board's decision by letter dated September 7, 2016. Aside from the filing of a related tax form on May 23, 2016, the parties did not communicate at all regarding the Hospital's application for a charitable exemption for tax year 2016 between the date the Form A-9 was filed and the date the application was denied by the board.

The Hospital timely appealed the board's decision to the superior court. The Town moved for summary judgment arguing, in relevant part, that it is undisputed that the Hospital's application was untimely filed, and that the Hospital offered no evidence of accident, mistake or misfortune to the board as an excuse for the delay, thereby failing to pursue the only statutory exception for a late filing. See RSA 72:23-c, I. The Hospital objected to the Town's motion, but did not dispute that the Form A-9 was untimely filed. The Hospital argued that the Town's motion should be denied because the Town waived any objection to the timeliness of the Hospital's application, and because the Hospital was able to satisfy the statutory standard of accident, mistake or misfortune. The trial court granted the Town's motion and ruled that the Hospital's application for a charitable exemption for the 2016 tax year was properly denied because the application was untimely filed under RSA 72:23-c, I. The trial court also determined that the Hospital had waived the argument that its late filing was caused by accident, mistake or misfortune because the Hospital did not present that argument to the board.

While the summary judgment motion was pending, the Hospital moved to amend its complaint to add a claim alleging an equal protection violation based upon the Town's administrative policy, uncovered by the Hospital during discovery, of notifying particular entities, not including the Hospital, of approaching filing deadlines for tax exemptions. The trial court denied the Hospital's motion, ruling that the amendment introduced an entirely new cause of action, would call for substantially different evidence, and would not cure the defect in the complaint. The Hospital moved for reconsideration. Adhering to the same reasoning as set forth in its previous order, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

II.

A. Grant of the Town's Motion for Summary Judgment

We first review the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town. When reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Dent v. Exeter Hosp., 155 N.H. 787, 791, 931 A.2d 1203 (2007). If our review of the evidence does not reveal any genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the trial court's decision. Id. at 792, 931 A.2d 1203. An issue of fact is "material" for purposes of summary judgment if it affects the outcome of the litigation under the applicable substantive law. Id. We review the trial court's application of the law to the facts de novo. Id. To the extent we are required to interpret applicable statutes, our review is de novo. ElderTrust of Fla. v. Town of Epsom, 154 N.H. 693, 696, 919 A.2d 776 (2007).

RSA 72:23-c, I, which governs the filing for a charitable tax exemption, provides, in pertinent part:

Every religious, educational and charitable organization ... shall annually, on or before April 15, file a list of all real estate and personal property owned by them on which exemption from taxation is claimed, upon a form [Form A-9] prescribed and provided by the board of tax and land appeals, with the selectmen or assessors .... If any organization, otherwise qualified to receive an exemption, shall satisfy the selectmen or assessors that they were prevented by accident, mistake or misfortune from filing an application on or before April 15, the officials may receive the application at a later date and grant an exemption thereunder for that year; but no such application shall be received or exemption granted after the local tax rate has been approved for that year.

RSA 72:23-c, I.

The plain language of the statute requires that the Form A-9 exemption claim "shall" be filed annually on or before April 15. Id. The use of the word "shall" indicates a legislative mandate. Anderson v. Robitaille, 172 N.H. 20, 24, 205 A.3d 1105 (2019). The lone statutory exception to the April 15 deadline — and the only circumstances under which local officials are extended discretion to accept a late filing — is available if the applicant "shall satisfy the selectmen or assessors" that the late filing was due to accident, mistake or misfortune. RSA 72:23-c, I. There is no dispute that the Hospital's Form A-9 for tax year 2016, which was filed on May 19, 2016, was untimely filed. Additionally, the record is devoid of any indication that the Hospital argued to the board that the delay in filing the Form A-9 was due to accident, mistake or misfortune. Thus, the trial court properly ruled that the Hospital's application was untimely and that the Hospital waived any argument that its late filing was a result of accident, mistake or misfortune.

The Hospital argues that, despite its untimely filing, the board "received" the Hospital's application for purposes of RSA 72:23-c, I, because the Town physically received the Hospital's Form A-9 and did not bring any potential defects in the filing to the Hospital's attention, and because the board ruled on the merits of the application. The Hospital contends that, by reaching the merits of the application, the board found that the delay was due to accident, mistake or misfortune and chose to waive the filing deadline. Although we agree that the board not only determined that the application was untimely but also that "the level of charity care provided by the hospital is very small and it is a fee for service operation," the board may exercise discretion to review an untimely filed Form A-9 only if the applicant has satisfied the board that the late filing was due to accident, mistake or misfortune. RSA 72:23-c, I. As the trial court correctly observed, the statute places the burden on the taxpayer to convince the board that the specified circumstances caused the taxpayer to file late. See id. Here, the Hospital provided no evidence for the board to consider whether the late filing was due to accident, mistake or misfortune.

Nor can it be inferred from the record that the board impliedly made such a finding, because it expressly denied the application as untimely before observing that the application lacked merit. Cf. Pelham Plaza v. Town of Pelham, 117 N.H. 178, 180-82, 370 A.2d 638 (1977). The board's explicit ruling denying the application as untimely weighs against any inference that the board impliedly found that the timeliness requirement was somehow waived or satisfied. Similarly, the Town's knowledge of the Hospital's intention to pursue an exemption by way of the untimely filed Form A-9, together with the board's failure to raise any issue of timeliness until the application was denied months later, does not create such an inference. The "mere intention to file, even with an awareness on the part of the Town, is not sufficient to overcome the requirements of RSA 72:23-c." Society for the Preservation of Rockwood Pond v. Town of Fitzwilliam, Nos. 19096-2001EX and Nos. 19097-2001PT, 2003 WL 1935841 (N.H. Bd. Tax Land App. 2003). On this record, neither the statutory deadline nor the statutory exception thereto was satisfied. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the board was not required to "receive the application at a later date and grant an exemption thereunder for that year." RSA 72:23-c, I.

The Hospital argues, nevertheless, that, because the board reached the merits of the application, the trial court erred by not doing the same and applying the ElderTrust factors to determine, de novo, whether the Hospital qualifies as a charitable organization pursuant to RSA 72:23, V (Supp. 2020). See ElderTrust, 154 N.H. at 697-98, 919 A.2d 776. However, as noted above and observed by the trial court, the Hospital did not satisfy the only provision of the statute that provided the board with the discretion...