Harold Lassonde, III d/b/a Mountain View Construction v. Charles Stanton and another, 157 N.H. 582

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed a judgment finding the defendants liable for breach of contract and defamation arising from construction of their log home. The court affirmed the contract and defamation liability findings and the $10,000 defamation award, but remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest and determination of an appropriate attorney's-fee award under the contract. The court also held that the plaintiff was a private figure for purposes of the defamation claim.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly found that the Stantons breached the written contract by failing to pay the amount due, and that they lacked a valid legal excuse for withholding payment.
2. The court declined to decide whether Lassonde's alleged oral promises modified the written contract because that issue was not presented in the notice of appeal and was not a subsidiary issue fairly comprised within the stated appellate question.
3. Lassonde was a private figure because the private construction dispute did not constitute a public controversy and he did not thrust himself into that controversy to influence its resolution.
4. The trial court properly awarded $10,000 in general damages for defamation per se, and the award did not require proof of specific economic loss.
5. The contract's provision allowing a fifteen-to-eighteen-percent annual finance charge was unambiguous and enforceable; Lassonde was entitled to prejudgment interest at fifteen percent.
6. The contract clearly contemplated an award of some attorney's fees, although the proper scope of the award remained ambiguous and required further proceedings.
7. The court declined to consider Lassonde's claim for attorney's fees based on bad-faith litigation because he failed to preserve the issue in the trial court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's finding that the Stantons breached the written construction contract was unsupported by the evidence or an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
2. Whether the Stantons' arguments concerning alleged oral promises by Lassonde constituted an unpreserved claim concerning enforceable oral contract modifications.
3. Whether Lassonde was a limited-purpose public figure required to prove actual malice to recover for defamation.
4. Whether the trial court improperly excluded evidence concerning Lassonde's media publicity.
5. Whether the $10,000 defamation damages award was unsupported by the evidence.
6. Whether the construction contract required prejudgment interest at a rate of at least fifteen percent rather than the statutory rate.
7. Whether the contract entitled Lassonde to attorney's fees and, if so, what fees the provision covered.
8. Whether Lassonde was entitled to attorney's fees under the bad-faith litigation exception.

Disposition

other