Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Hillsborough-northern judicial district No. 2011-661 ROBERT SURPRENANT v. DEBORAH MULCRONE Submitted: April 5, 2012 Opinion Issued: April 20, 2012 Robert Surprenant, by brief, pro se. Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau, & Pachios, PLLP, of Concord (William C. Saturley and Mark H. Puffer on the brief), for the defendant. CONBOY, J. The plaintiff, Robert Surprenant, appeals the order of the Superior Court (Brown, J.) dismissing his claims against the defendant, Deborah Mulcrone, under the doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. We affirm. The following facts derive from the record. The defendant was the guardian ad litem (GAL) for the plaintiff's son in a contested case between the plaintiff and the son's mother. The defendant was appointed to investigate how the plaintiff and his son's mother should divide parenting time and residential

responsibility for their son. In her final report to the court, submitted in January 2011, the defendant observed that while the plaintiff originally disclosed a prior conviction for driving while under the influence, he failed to disclose his entire criminal history. The defendant noted that the plaintiff had "a history of charges and/or convictions which occurred in NH and FL, such as sexual assault, criminal restraint, resisting arrest or detention, disorderly conduct, simple assault, theft of services, criminal trespassing, kidnapping [and] larceny." The defendant stated in her report that although it was "commendable" that the plaintiff had had no similar criminal charges since 1994, his failure to disclose his prior charges was "troubling." In June 2011, the plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the statements in her final report were negligently made and breached an implied contract with the plaintiff to observe "reasonable standards of care and fair dealing." The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that because the actions about which the plaintiff complains were all taken in her capacity as a court-appointed GAL, she was immune from liability under the doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. This appeal followed. The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court erred when it ruled that the defendant was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, our standard of review is whether the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery. McNamara v. Hersh, 157 N.H. 72, 73 (2008). We assume the plaintiff's allegations to be true and construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to him. See id. We need not, however, accept allegations in the writ that are merely conclusions of law. Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., 160 N.H. 708, 711 (2010). We then engage in a threshold inquiry, testing the facts alleged in the pleadings against the applicable law. Id. We will uphold the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss if the facts pleaded do not constitute a basis for legal relief. Id. "The doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity has long been recognized in this State, and has been explained as the rule of public policy which protects judicial officers and those exercising judicial functions from liability in actions of tort for wrongs committed by them when acting in that capacity." Gould v. Director, N.H. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 138 N.H. 343, 346 (1994) (quotation and ellipsis omitted). "It has been repeatedly decided in this state that when an officer or a board is called upon to pass upon evidence and decide, their conclusion cannot be collaterally attacked, and that they are not liable to answer in a suit for their action. The reason given in the cases is that such action is judicial." Id. (quotation omitted). "Where immunity applies we do not

2

look to the motives of the immune official

Download 2011-661, Robert Suprenant v. Deborah Mulcrone.pdf

New Hampshire Law