Court Opinion

ID: 9897502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:15:23.438732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:41.723786
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                             SUPREME COURT

     In Case No. 2023-0181, K.A. v. D.A., the court on October
20, 2023, issued the following order:

       The relief requested in the plaintiff’s memorandum of law is denied. The
court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal,
and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R.
20(2). The defendant, D.A., appeals orders of the Circuit Court (Rauseo, J.)
relating to an extension of a domestic violence protective order. See RSA 173-
B:5, IV (2022). He raises numerous issues on appeal. We remand.

       We note that the defendant raises several general questions about the
law that effectively seek advisory opinions. We generally lack authority to grant
advisory opinions to private litigants. See Piper v. Town of Meredith, 109 N.H.
328, 330 (1969). To the extent that the defendant raises his issues within the
context of this case, we cannot properly address the issues without a fully-
developed evidentiary record. RSA 173-B:5, VI provides the defendant with the
right to a hearing on the extension. Although the trial court scheduled a
hearing as provided under the statute, the defendant filed his notice of appeal
the day before the hearing. The trial court understandably interpreted the
defendant’s appeal to divest it of continuing jurisdiction, prompting the court
to cancel the hearing. See Rautenberg v. Munnis, 107 N.H. 446, 447 (1966).
Under the unique circumstances of this case, and pursuant to our “general
superintendence of all courts of inferior jurisdiction,” RSA 490:4 (2010), we
remand for a hearing as required by RSA 173-B:5, VI. The 30-day deadline in
RSA 173-B:5, VI shall run from the date of this order. Unless this court orders
otherwise, the filing of any motion to reconsider in this court shall not stay the
deadline for holding the hearing.

     In light of our decision, we need not address the defendant’s remaining
arguments. See Antosz v. Allain, 163 N.H. 298, 302 (2012) (declining to
address parties’ other arguments where holding on one issue is dispositive).

                                                  Remanded.

     MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

                                                  Timothy A. Gudas,
                                                       Clerk