Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment in a quiet-title and boundary-line dispute involving overlapping property descriptions and a prior quiet-title decree. The court held that the prior decree did not bind the Porters' predecessors or successors because known potential claimants were not expressly named as defendants as required by RSA 498:5-a, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction over them. The court rejected the respondents' additional arguments based on res judicata, the tax deed statute of repose, and laches, and reversed and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 1982 quiet-title decree bound the Willeys and their successors when the Willeys were known to have a potential interest in the property but were not expressly named as defendants.
- Whether the Porters' action was an impermissible collateral attack on the 1982 decree.
- Whether res judicata, the injunction in the 1982 decree, RSA 80:39, or laches independently barred the Porters' claim.
- Whether the Cocos were entitled to summary judgment.
Holdings
- A quiet-title petition must name persons who may claim an adverse estate or interest, and a party known to have even a speculative potential interest must be named. The Willeys were necessary parties because the record identified them as potential owners of an interest in the disputed acreage.
- The Willeys and their successors were not bound by the 1982 quiet-title decree because they were necessary parties who were not named, their potential interest was not articulated in the petition, and they did not participate in the proceeding.
- The Porters could collaterally attack the 1982 decree because the 1982 court lacked jurisdiction over the Willeys and their successors.
- The record did not support summary judgment based on res judicata, the injunction in the 1982 decree, RSA 80:39, or laches.
- The Cocos were not entitled to summary judgment because they failed to demonstrate that the 1982 court had jurisdiction over the Willeys and because the record did not establish the asserted alternative bars as a matter of law.
Key quotations
“A petition to quiet title quiets title as against the world with respect to the land at issue.” (154 N.H. at 356)
“Regardless of the sufficiency of notice, the fact remains, based upon the record before us, that the Willeys were persons known to have a potential interest in a portion of the property and further, that the nature of their claim was known.” (154 N.H. at 359)
“Accordingly, we hold that because the Cocos failed to demonstrate that the trial court in 1982 had jurisdiction over the Willeys, the Porters are not precluded from collaterally challenging the 1982 decree.” (154 N.H. at 361)
Factual background
The Porters and Cocos own adjacent parcels in Fremont and dispute ownership of approximately 2.2 acres. Both chains of title contained descriptions encompassing the disputed land, although the Cocos' predecessor acquired the property through a tax collector deed describing it only as five acres of Clough Land. In 1982, the Therriaults brought a quiet-title action and received a default judgment, but the Willeys, who then owned the adjoining 23-acre parcel and were identified as potentially having an interest, were not named as defendants. A 2002 survey led the Porters to file their own quiet-title and boundary-line petition.
Procedural history
The Therriaults obtained a 1982 default judgment quieting title to property that included the disputed 2.2 acres, but the Willeys, the Porters' predecessors in title, were not expressly named as defendants. After a 2002 survey indicated that the disputed acreage was part of the Porters' property, the Porters filed a quiet-title and boundary-line petition in 2003. The Superior Court initially denied summary judgment motions, but then sua sponte reversed its prior ruling and granted the Cocos' renewed motion. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The grant of summary judgment to the Cocos is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings on the Porters' petition to quiet title and establish the boundary line.