Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in New Hampshire

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Summary Judgment

“Summary judgment is warranted only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist. v. State (2021) 261 A.3d 270, 282.)

“Summary judgment is provided for in RSA 491:8-a. As interpreted by this court, the summary judgment procedure exists primarily to expedite litigation by allowing the court to pierce the pleadings and assess the proof . . . in order to determine [whether] there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring a formal trial of the action." (See Omiya v. Castor (1987) 130 N.H. 234, 236-37; Community Oil Co. v. Welch (1964) 105 N.H. 320, 321, 199 A.2d 107, 108.)

“It is an excellent device to make possible the prompt disposition of controversies on their merits without a trial, if in essence there is no real dispute as to the salient facts or if only a question of law is involved." (See Omiya v. Castor (1987) 130 N.H. 234, 236-37; New Hampshire York Co. v. Titus Constr. Co. (1966) 107 N.H. 223, 224-25, 219 A.2d 708, 710.)

"[T]he very object of a motion for summary judgment is to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment from that which is genuine and substantial so that only the latter may subject a suitor to the burden of a trial." (See Omiya v. Castor (1987) 130 N.H. 234, 236-37; Nashua Trust Co. v. Sardonis (1957) 101 N.H. 166, 168-69, 136 A.2d 332, 333.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Summary Judgment

“A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or crossclaim, or to obtain a declaratory judgment, may, at any time after the defendant has appeared, move for summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.” (See N.H. Rev. Stat. § 491:8-a(I).)

“A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or crossclaim is asserted or a declaratory judgment is sought, may, at any time, move for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof.” (See id.)

“Any party seeking summary judgment shall accompany his motion with an affidavit based upon personal knowledge of admissible facts as to which it appears affirmatively that the affiants will be competent to testify.” (See N.H. Rev. Stat. § 491:8-a(II).)

“When reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment, we consider the pleadings and any accompanying affidavits, and all proper inferences drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (See Nault v. N L Dev. Co. (2001) 146 N.H. 35, 36; Contoocook Val. Sch. Dist. v. Graphic Arts (2001) 147 N.H. 392, 393.)

“The party opposing a motion for summary judgment may file either an objection or his own motion for summary judgment, but in either case the opponent's filing must be supported by one or more affidavits or refer specifically to affidavits, pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories or admissions on file which establish the existence of a disputed issue of material fact.” (See Omiya v. Castor (1987) 130 N.H. 234, 236; Lortie v. Bois (1979) 119 N.H. 72, 398 A.2d 540.)

“While the moving party must file at least one affidavit based on the personal knowledge of a person who would be competent to testify at trial, the opposing party may file an affidavit which only shows reasonable and specific grounds for believing that evidence disputing the moving party's affidavits can be produced at trial.” (See id.)

“However, the opposing party's response must do more than give notice of his objection to the motion or dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's affidavit.” (See Omiya v. Castor (1987) 130 N.H. 234, 236; Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Barton (1978) 118 N.H. 195, 385 A.2d 118; Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Patterson (1970) 110 N.H. 261, 266 A.2d 116.)

“It must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial." (See Omiya v. Castor (1987) 130 N.H. 234, 236; Arsenault v. Willis (1977) 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266; Proctor v. Bank of N.H. (1983) 123 N.H. 395, 464 A.2d 263.)

“Mere denials or vague and general allegations of expected proof are not enough.” (See Omiya v. Castor (1987) 130 N.H. 234, 236; Proctor v. Bank of N.H. (1983) 123 N.H. at 399, 464 A.2d at 265.)

Standard of Review in Deciding a Motion for Summary Judgment

“We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo.” (See Burnap v. Somersworth Sch. Dist. (2019) 172 N.H. 632, 636.)

“We review de novo the trial court's application of the law to the facts in its summary judgment ruling.” (See Brown v. Concord Grp. Ins. Co. (2012) 163 N.H. 522, 524-25; Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. (2005) 151 N.H. 649, 652, 864 A.2d 368.)

“We consider all of the evidence presented in the record, and all inferences properly drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” (See id.)

“If our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then we will affirm the grant of summary judgment.” (See id; O'Donnell v. Allstate Indem. Co. (2020) 173 N.H. 295, 299.)

“A fact is material if it affects the outcome of the litigation under the applicable substantive law.” (See Brown v. Concord Grp. Ins. Co. (2012) 163 N.H. 522, 524-25; Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. (2005) 151 N.H. 649, 652, 864 A.2d 368; Palmer v. Nan King Restaurant (2002) 147 N.H. 681, 683, 798 A.2d 583.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Summary Judgment

It is well settled that “summary judgment is a procedure designed to save time, effort, and expense and to streamline the administration of justice by avoiding the formal trial of cases where there is no genuine issue of material fact. However, its purpose should not be, and is not, to deny litigants a right of trial if they really have material issues to litigate." (See Green Mt. Ins. Co. v. Bonney (1989) 131 N.H. 762, 766; Community Oil Co. v. Welch (1964) 105 N.H. 320, 321-22, 199 A.2d 107, 108-09.)

It is also well settled that “according to RSA 491:8-a, a motion for summary judgment may be rendered upon the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits filed. The trial court is not required by statute to hold a hearing prior to ruling on a summary judgment motion. Rather, under Superior Court Rule 58, the party seeking a hearing on an objection to a motion must request one within ten days after the filing of the motion. The trial court then has discretion to grant or deny the request. If the opposing party fails to request a hearing, however, the court may act on the motion on the basis of the pleadings and record before it.” (See N.H. Rev. Stat. § 491:8-a(III); Furbush v. McKittrick (2003) 149 N.H. 426, 430.)