Opinion ID: 3155206
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objective Standard

Text: The plaintiffs further contend that the trial court erred by applying a subjective rather than an objective standard in evaluating the qualified immunity defense. They maintain that the trial court improperly relied upon what it found to be Sheehan’s actual “‘good faith’” beliefs, rather than applying an “objective ‘reasonable person’ test.” The interpretation of a trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo. Choquette v. Roy, 167 N.H. 507, 513 (2015). We conclude that the trial court applied the correct standard. The trial court determined that Sheehan’s “misrepresentations to Judge Ryan were made based on [her] good faith application of the [Department’s] policy concerning the relationship between mortgage bankers and mortgage lenders.” The court concluded, therefore, “that a similarly situated official would not have believed the misrepresentations violated Mr. Frost’s constitutional rights.” In its order on the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the court further explained: Even if the Court were to strip the “good faith” aspect from its finding, the result remains the same. According to Ms. Sheehan’s objective knowledge, it was the policy of the [Department] to treat mortgage bankers and mortgage lenders synonymously. Former Assistant Attorney General Karen Gorham’s testimony at the hearing confirmed this policy. To find that Ms. Sheehan’s actions were objectively reasonable, therefore, is not, as the plaintiffs contend a reward of ignorance. Ms. Sheehan did not equate the terms mortgage banker and mortgage lender simply because she did not know any better. Her overall lack of knowledge notwithstanding, the Court finds it is objectively reasonable for a Bank Examiner to be familiar with and follow the internal policies of the Banking Department. Although, as the plaintiffs point out, the trial court used the term “good faith,” implying that it considered Sheehan’s subjective state of mind, it then applied an objective standard to reach its conclusion that Sheehan’s conduct 7 was objectively legally reasonable. The court examined the facts of the case and the information Sheehan possessed when she made the statement to Judge Ryan and assessed whether a reasonable person in her position would have understood that equating “mortgage lender” with “mortgage banker” violated the plaintiffs’ rights. See Conrad, 167 N.H. at 73; see also Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641. The plaintiffs maintain that “[i]f the trial court had used a truly objective [standard,] it would not have used the alleged fact that Sheehan was following an unofficial departmental ‘policy.’” We disagree. The trial court was permitted to examine the “specific context of the case” in determining whether Sheehan’s conduct was objectively reasonable. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the court’s statement that it was objectively reasonable for a bank examiner to be familiar with, and follow, internal Department policies was not an analysis of the Department’s subjective belief. It was an analysis of whether a reasonable Department official would understand that what she was doing violated the law. See Snider, 752 F.3d at 1155. To the extent that the plaintiffs argue that there is a material issue of disputed fact as to whether there existed an informal policy equating mortgage banker with mortgage lender, we disagree. To defeat a motion for summary judgment, “the adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or by reference to depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” RSA 491:8-a, IV (2010). The appellate record contains no affidavit, deposition, answer to interrogatory, or admission setting forth specific facts to bolster the plaintiffs’ contention that an informal policy did not exist. As such, this contention was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Cf. Tolan, 134 S. Ct. at 1867-68 (vacating grant of summary judgment to officer on qualified immunity grounds because court had “credited the evidence of the party seeking summary judgment and failed properly to acknowledge key evidence offered by the party opposing that motion”). Alternatively, the plaintiffs contend that such a policy, even if it existed, contravened the plain language of the statute in effect when Frost executed the mortgage. The protection of qualified immunity applies, however, “regardless of whether the government official’s error is a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quotation omitted). As such, it is not enough for a § 1983 plaintiff to merely show mistake — a “plaintiff must also show that his clearly established constitutional rights were violated (i.e., that a reasonable [government official] would have known that he was violating those rights at the time of the challenged decision).” Bell v. Norwood, No. 2:11–CV–3732–RDP, 2014 WL 4388348, at  (N.D. Ala. Aug. 28, 2014). As stated above, we cannot 8 say that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation so that officials of reasonable competence could not disagree on the issue of whether “mortgage banker” was synonymous with “mortgage lender.” Thus, the mere fact that Sheehan relied upon the unofficial policy does not necessarily preclude the application of qualified immunity.