Opinion ID: 1548799
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interpretation of RSA 447:18

Text: RSA 447:18 provides, in pertinent part: Said claimant shall, within one year after filing such claim, file a petition in the superior court ... to enforce his claim or intervene in a petition already filed, with copy to the principal and surety, and such further notice as the court may order. Pursuant to general rules of statutory construction, the word `shall' is a command, which requires mandatory enforcement. Fastrack I, 149 N.H. at 664-65, 827 A.2d 1019 (quotation omitted). Substantial compliance with this statute does not suffice. See id. at 666, 827 A.2d 1019. Our law is well settled that in giving statutory notice the requirements of the statute must be strictly observed. Id. (quotation omitted). The petitioner concedes that it did not provide copies of its petitions to the moving respondents until August 2008, more than one year after filing its March 2007 claim. The petitioner argues that, nonetheless, it complied with RSA 447:18 because [t]he one year statute of limitations contained in RSA 447:18 qualifies and relates only to the date of the filing for the Petition to Enforce and does not create a specific obligation to provide a Respondent a copy of such Petition within a specific timeframe (i.e., one year). Although the legislature is not compelled to follow technical rules of grammar and composition, a widely accepted method of statutory construction is to read and examine the text of the statute and draw inferences concerning its meaning from its composition and structure. In re Richard M., 127 N.H. 12, 17, 497 A.2d 1200 (1985) (quotation omitted). Here, we must determine to what subject the phrase within one year after filing such claim applies. Where a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequents they are to be read distributively. The words are to be applied to the subjects that seem most properly related by context and applicability. 2A N. Singer & J.D. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.26, at 438 (7th ed.2007). Thus, [w]here several words granting power, authority, and obligation are found at the beginning of a clause, it is not necessary that each of the words apply to the several branches of the clause. It may be construed reddendo singula singulis and the words giving power and authority limited to particular subjects and those of obligation applied to others. Id. at 441. In this case, the subjects most properly related to the phrase within one year after filing such claim are file a petition and with copy to principal and surety. It would not make sense to apply the phrase to such further notice as the court may order because a petitioner has no control over when a court will issue orders for further notice. As the petitioner contends: [I]t is impossible for a party filing a Petition to predict when a particular Court might be able to receive, process, and return an Order of Notice for service on a Respondent. We will not interpret a statute to require such an illogical result. State v. Yates, 152 N.H. 245, 255, 876 A.2d 176 (2005); see General Electric Co. v. Dole, 105 N.H. 477, 479, 202 A.2d 486 (1964). Further aiding our construction is the fact that the phrase with copy to principal and surety is separated from the phrase file a petition with a comma and that there is a conjunction separating such further notice as ordered by the court from the rest of the sentence. This indicates that the two phrases file a petition and with copy to principal and surety are to be read together, while the phrase such further notice as ordered by the court is to be read on its own. The petitioner argues that it is absurd to require a petitioner to provide a respondent with two (2) copies of the exact same pleading. We disagree. New Hampshire is not alone in requiring a petitioner to provide separate notice of the filing of a lawsuit under similar circumstances. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 48-2A-9 (Michie 1995) (requiring that written notice of lawsuit to obtain satisfaction of stop notice be mailed to subject of lawsuit within five days after date suit was filed). Moreover, construing the statute to require a petitioner to provide the principal and surety with a copy of the petition to enforce the bond in addition to such further notice as the court may order is consistent with the last antecedent rule. See Mountain Valley Mall Assocs. v. Municipality of Conway, 144 N.H. 642, 652, 745 A.2d 481 (2000). The last antecedent rule, a subset of reddendo singula singulis, is the general rule of statutory as well as grammatical construction that a modifying clause is confined to the last antecedent unless there is something in the subject matter or dominant purpose which requires a different interpretation. Id. (quotation omitted); see L. Jellum, Mastering Statutory Interpretation 84 (2008); Singer & Singer, supra § 47.33, at 487-89. This rule has been adopted by statute. See RSA 21:14 (2000); Piper v. Railroad, 75 N.H. 435, 442, 75 A. 1041 (1910). RSA 21:14 provides: The words `said' and `such,' when used by way of reference to any person or thing, shall apply to the same person or thing last mentioned. See Piper, 75 N.H. at 442, 75 A. 1041. Applying this rule, such further notice means that the copy of the petition given to principal and surety when the petition is filed is in addition to any court-ordered notice. The copy of the petition given when the petition is first filed is the first notice and court-ordered notice given thereafter is such further notice. In other words, the statute requires that the petitioner provide the respondents with two copies of the same pleading, once when the petitioner first files the petition and again when the petitioner is ordered to serve the respondents by the trial court. In this case, because the petitioner did not provide the moving respondents with a copy of its petitions within one year after filing its notice of claim, the petitioner did not strictly comply with RSA 447:18, and the trial court did not err by dismissing its petitions. See Fastrack I, 149 N.H. at 666, 827 A.2d 1019.