2 pages

business_law_case.docx

Please find a New Hampshire case on some topic of business law.

After reading it several times and understanding it, please write one to three paragraphs. In those paragraphs, describe the essence of the case so that the readers can learn the importance of your case. Think about what you would need if someone else was describing a case to you.

Please also add something of your own opinion about the case. That can be anything.

Find a case:

My.snhu.edu username: [email protected] password：900903Gao

Click the Shapiro Library on the right side

$C:\Users\Ran Gao\AppData\Roaming\Tencent\Users\240006282\QQ\WinTemp\RichOle\KASB]PGU)714CGXRV{JE84P.jpg$

Click the A-Z database list in the middle.

$C:\Users\Ran Gao\AppData\Roaming\Tencent\Users\240006282\QQ\WinTemp\RichOle\$[RDL~3UKPR1OB8SRAQ$S%Q.jpg$

Click the letter “L”

Choose the third one “LexisNexis Academic”

$C:\Users\Ran Gao\AppData\Roaming\Tencent\Users\240006282\QQ\WinTemp\RichOle\4L37[H8I%@$`~CY70]182]K.jpg$

Click the Look up a legal case

$C:\Users\Ran Gao\AppData\Roaming\Tencent\Users\240006282\QQ\WinTemp\RichOle\Z}4J%R4EZA((NFFF)ACSMBL.jpg$

Put the “New Hampshire” in the by topic than click go

Then choose “NH Supreme Court cases from 1816” on left side.

$C:\Users\Ran Gao\AppData\Roaming\Tencent\Users\240006282\QQ\WinTemp\RichOle\NV)@ARDD}5`11B{_XS1@INO.jpg$

Please follow the form as the example.

Example:

CASE: Wells Fargo Bank V. Scott Schultz – 2013 – Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

PARTIES: Wells Fargo Bank (Plaintiff) and Scott Schultz (Defendant).

FACTS: Scott Schultz obtained a loan amount worth $312,000 from Option One Mortgage Corporation to purchase a property in East Hampstead in the year 2006, for which he executed a promissory note and mortgage to Option One Mortgage Corporation. Scott lagged in paying the mortgage payments, which led to the sale of the property at foreclosure and an eviction notice was served to Scott. Eventually, Foreclosure sale occurred in the year 2011 and was purchased by Wells Fargo Bank with an evidence of foreclosure deed. As a result, Wells Fargo Bank (Plaintiff) filed a possessory action in the District Division appealing to evict Scott Schultz (Defendant) from the property. In response to the possessory action, the defendant moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that Plaintiff has lacked proper evidence in order to claim the possessory right. However, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as the district division cannot rule the issues that affect the title to real estate. Even, the request for reconsideration by the defendant was also denied by the trial court. Thereafter, evidentiary hearing was held where the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of its foreclosure deed, for which the trial court took judicial notice of the eviction notice. On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff has not provided evidence to prove as owner of the property. The defendant went on to rely on out-of-state cases to support his position. But the cases were not helpful for analysis as they were dependent upon each state’s statutory scheme. As the district division lacks jurisdiction to judge issues related to title, the trial court rejected the defendant’s intention to challenge plaintiff’s record title which is a part of foreclosure deed.

DECISION: The defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied by the district division as the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of its foreclosure deed proving that it is the purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property.

REASON: Although the district division has the authority to judge possessory actions, it lacks jurisdiction to judge issues of title of real estate. The issues of the title should be resolved in superior court. The evidence proving defendant’s position cannot be accepted, as it questions the title to the demanded property possession. However, the defendant can appeal a plea to enter his action in the superior court by paying all the rent, damages and costs due as demanded by the plaintiff, before the action pending in the superior court. In that way, the case would be appealed in the superior court without having to take the case retrospective for the rest of the time. But, the defendant did not petition the case to the superior court which resulted in denial of motion to dismiss by the trial court of district division.

OPINION: This case seems pretty straight forward. It describes the thin line between the “possessory actions of the property” and “title issues of real estate”. It clearly describes the type of issues and concerns that fall under District Division and Supreme Court pertained to “title of real estate”. The situation that puzzled me in this case was, as to why both the parties haven’t considered negotiation before taking the issue to the district court. Moreover, another interesting point to be noted is that, as to why the defendant hasn’t considered to appeal for a petition to the superior court which leads to questioning of legitimacy of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. According to me, the plaintiff could have tried to negotiate a meeting prior to filing possessory actions in order to sort the mortgage payment issues. And also, had the defendant petitioned to the superior court, his title issues would have been considered in the superior court and the possessory action of the plaintiff could be paused and the rest of the case would have been potentially be appealed based on the title issues.