Chase Home for Children v. New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth & Families

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed an order requiring the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth & Families to pay residential childcare providers for underpaid fiscal-year 2004–2006 rates. The court held that the parties had express and implied-in-fact contracts incorporating the rate-setting methodology in He-C 6422, and that the State’s sovereign immunity was waived for the contract claims under RSA 491:8. The court also held that separation-of-powers principles and RSA 9:19 did not bar entry of the judgment.

Holdings

1. The Provider Service Agreements were valid express contracts. Their objectively unambiguous rate term required rates to be set in accordance with He-C 6422 and did not condition payment on the availability of legislative appropriations.
2. The parties formed implied-in-fact contracts covering services provided to non-Medicaid children, and those contracts contained terms identical to the Provider Service Agreements.
3. The providers' contract claims were timely because the statute of limitations was tolled while the providers pursued the required administrative proceedings.
4. RSA 491:8 expressly waives the State's sovereign immunity for actions founded on express or implied contracts and authorizes the superior court to enter a monetary judgment against the State.
5. The judgment did not violate separation of powers or RSA 9:19. RSA 491:8 specifically authorizes courts to enter contract judgments against the State, and RSA 9:19 does not prevent a court from entering a judgment exceeding an existing appropriation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Provider Service Agreements were express contracts whose rates were not conditioned on legislative appropriations.
2. Whether the parties formed implied-in-fact contracts covering services provided to non-Medicaid children.
3. Whether the providers' fiscal-year 2004 and 2005 contract claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations in RSA 508:4.
4. Whether sovereign immunity, separation of powers, or RSA 9:19 barred the superior court from entering a monetary judgment against DCYF for breach of contract.
5. Whether the court needed to decide the asserted private cause of action under RSA chapters 169-B, 169-C, and 169-D or the good-faith-and-fair-dealing issue.

Disposition

affirmed