Case Name: Deborah Severance Baker v. Sheila A. Wilmot
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1986-05-12
Citations: 128 N.H. 121
Docket Number: No. 85-393
Parties: Deborah Severance Baker v. Sheila A. Wilmot
Judges: 
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 121–121

Head Matter:
Hillsborough
No. 85-393
Deborah Severance Baker v. Sheila A. Wilmot
May 12, 1986
Winer, Pillsbury and Bennett, of Nashua (Peter G. Webb on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch P.A., of Manchester (Robert C. Dewhirst on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

Opinion:
Memorandum Opinion
On plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under RSA 491:8-a, the Superior Court (Bean, J.) made findings of fact and noted a "possible material mistake" of fact by the parties. Such findings of fact exceeded the trial court's authority on motion for summary judgment which is limited to determining whether a "genuine issue of material fact requiring a formal trial" exists. Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 983, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977). Moreover, the "possible" factual issue, if genuine, was itself sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Since the trial court did not find that there was no genuine issue of material fact, the order of summary judgment was erroneous.
We note that § 20 of the defendant's response states that there are "no genuine issues as to any relevant facts." (Emphasis in original.) It is clear, however, that the defendant judged relevance by a legal theory that the trial court rejected.
There being no basis to sustain the order, the summary judgment for the plaintiff must be reversed.
Reversed.