Provencher v. Buzzell-Plourde Associates

• Decision Date: 11 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. 96-135,BUZZELL-PLOURDE,96-135
• Citation: 142 N.H. 848,711 A.2d 251
• Parties: Arthur PROVENCHER v.ASSOCIATES and another.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 251

711 A.2d 251

Arthur PROVENCHER v. BUZZELL-PLOURDE ASSOCIATES and another.

No. 96-135.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

June 11, 1998.

William H. Kelley, P.A., Manchester (Roy W. Tilsley, Jr. on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.

Law Office of Rodney L. Stark, P.A., Manchester (Michael D. Hatem on the brief and orally), for defendants Thompson Appraisal Company, Inc. and Leon E. Martineau, Jr.

Barto and Puffer, P.A., Concord, for defendants Buzzell-Plourde Associates and Leland E. Buzzell, joins in the brief of defendants Thompson Appraisal Company, Inc. and Leon E. Martineau, Jr.

HORTON, Justice.

The plaintiff, Arthur Provencher, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Hampsey, J.) granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. The superior court ruled that the doctrine of absolute witness immunity extends to the defendants' pre-litigation appraisals of the plaintiff's property. We affirm.

The plaintiff owned approximately 165 acres of land in Hudson, commonly known as Benson's Wild Animal Farm. On March 20, 1992, the plaintiff and the State negotiated a purchase and sale agreement (agreement) for the property. The department of transportation wished to purchase the property for a proposed highway project. Under the agreement, the State was entitled to take the property by eminent domain if the parties were unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable purchase price. See RSA 498-A:4 (1997). The plaintiff also agreed not to challenge the taking, and the State agreed that its eminent domain offer would not be less than the offer required by the purchase and sale agreement.

Pursuant to the agreement, the State contracted with defendants, Buzzell-Plourde Associates and Thompson Appraisal Company, Inc., to appraise the plaintiff's property. The defendants independently appraised the property at a market value of slightly more than $1,000,000. After the plaintiff refused to accept the State's offer, which was consistent with the defendants' appraisals, the State commenced an eminent domain proceeding. See RSA 498-A:4.

At the condemnation proceedings, the defendants testified as expert witnesses for the State regarding the value of the plaintiff's property. The defendants' testimony was consistent with their original appraisals. The plaintiff, on the other hand, presented expert testimony alleging that the value of the property exceeded $7,000,000. The jury ultimately determined that the property was worth approximately $4,000,000.

The plaintiff subsequently brought an action against the defendants alleging that they breached various duties owed to him as an intended third party beneficiary to the contracts they entered into with the State. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants gave inaccurate appraisals while testifying at the eminent domain proceeding. The plaintiff's writ included allegations of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss on the basis of witness immunity, arguing that their expert testimony provided them with immunity for their pre-litigation appraisals.

The plaintiff objected on the grounds that the defendants' alleged misconduct actually caused the eminent domain proceeding and thus could not insulate their pre-litigation appraisals from liability. Moreover, the plaintiff maintained that the defendants performed the appraisals as part of the agreement and not in preparation for the subsequent eminent domain proceeding.

The superior court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court noted that the doctrine of absolute witness immunity applies to pre-litigation communications if actual litigation was contemplated at the time the communications were made and if they were relevant or pertinent to the proposed litigation. The court found that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity because the parties contemplated litigation, i.e., an eminent domain proceeding, at the time the defendants conducted the pre-litigation appraisals and the appraisals were relevant to that proceeding.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court erred in that: (1) it failed to hold a hearing on the motions to dismiss as required by Superior Court Rule 58 (Rule 58); and (2) because the defendants' alleged acts occurred prior to, and actually caused, the eminent domain proceeding, their pre-litigation appraisals are not privileged.

We first address the plaintiff's Rule 58 argument. We review the superior court's decision not to hold a hearing for an abuse of discretion. See Thomas v. Finger, 141 N.H. 134, 137, 679 A.2d 567, 568 (1996).

Rule 58 provides:

In civil or equity actions, unless a party requests oral argument or an evidentiary hearing on any motion filed by the party or on any objection thereto by another party within ten (10) days after the filing of the motion, setting forth by memorandum, brief statement or written offer of proof the reasons why the oral argument or evidentiary hearing will further assist the court in determining the pending issue(s), no oral argument or evidentiary hearing will be scheduled and the court may act on the motion on the basis of the pleadings and record before it. Failure to object shall not, in and of itself, be grounds for granting the motion.

Upon request of counsel, motions to dismiss shall be heard as soon as practicable, and no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for trial on the merits, unless the presiding judge shall otherwise order in the exercise of his discretion. All counsel shall be prepared, at any such hearing, to present all necessary evidence.

(Emphasis added.) Rule 58 requires a party who requests an evidentiary hearing to set forth the reasons why a hearing will further assist the court in determining whether to grant a particular motion. See State v. Roy, 138 N.H. 97, 98, 635 A.2d 486, 486-87 (1993). We have emphasized that Rule 58 "clearly implies that the superior court ... has discretion to deny a requested oral argument or evidentiary hearing if the proffered reasons for holding such a hearing are insufficient." Id., 635 A.2d at 487.

Here, the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Rule 58. Instead, he simply requested a hearing without setting forth the reasons why such a hearing would assist the superior court in determining whether to grant the defendants' motions to dismiss. The plaintiff failed to submit any memorandum, brief statement, or offer of proof to demonstrate what facts or additional information he would have presented at the hearing if he was given the opportunity. Accordingly, we conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing in this matter. Cf. id. (affirming superior court's denial of defendant's petition for sentence suspension without holding an evidentiary hearing).

Moreover, we reject the plaintiff's argument that the second paragraph of Rule 58 specifically mandates that motions to dismiss must be heard upon request of counsel despite the requirements set forth in the first paragraph of the rule. Rather, the second paragraph must be read in conjunction with the first paragraph as setting forth the time frame regarding when motions to dismiss shall be heard, provided that the requesting party first complies with the requirements set forth in the first paragraph of the rule. See Super.Ct.R. 58. Because the plaintiff failed to aver any reasons regarding the necessity of an evidentiary hearing, the superior court properly denied his request for such a hearing.

We next address the plaintiff's argument that the court erred in granting the defendants' motions to dismiss on the basis of witness immunity. The plaintiff contends that the defendants' communications are not privileged because the defendants performed the appraisals prior to the initiation of the underlying litigation.

Generally, in ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court must determine whether the allegations contained in the plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently establish a basis upon which relief may be granted. Ossipee Auto Parts v. Ossipee Planning Board, 134 N.H. 401, 403, 593 A.2d 241, 242 (1991). In making this determination, the court would normally accept all facts pled by the plaintiff as true, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. When, however, the motion to dismiss does not challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's legal claim but, instead, raises certain defenses, the "trial court must look beyond the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations and determine, based on the facts, whether the plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated his right to claim relief." Id. at 403-04, 593 A.2d at 242 (setting forth standard of review on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing); cf. Kibby v. Anthony Industries, Inc., 123 N.H. 272, 274, 459 A.2d 292, 293-94 (1983) (noting that on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has burden of establishing sufficient facts to show that he has met the requirements of personal jurisdiction). We conclude that witness immunity is one such defense.

It is well-settled in New Hampshire that "certain communications are absolutely privileged and therefore immune from civil suit." Pickering v. Frink, 123 N.H. 326, 328, 461 A.2d 117, 119 (1983); see McGranahan v. Dahar, 119 N.H. 758, 762-63, 408 A.2d 121, 124 (1979). Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings constitute one class of communications that is privileged from liability in civil actions if the statements are pertinent or relevant to the proceedings. See Pickering, 123 N.H. at 329, 461 A.2d at 119; McGranahan, 119 N.H. at 763, 408 A.2d at 124; cf. Supry v. Bolduc, 112 N.H. 274, 276, 293 A.2d 767, 769 (1972) (determining statements made during a public hearing were not absolutely privileged because the hearing did not have all the hallmarks of a judicial proceeding). "A statement is presumed...