Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment in New Hampshire

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment

“A motion for reconsideration allows a party to present points of law or fact that a court has overlooked or misapprehended.” (See Webster v. Town of Candia (2001) 146 N.H. 430, 444; Broom v. Continental Cas. Co. (2005) 152 N.H. 749, 752.)

“It does not purport to authorize either party to submit further evidence bearing on the motion, nor is it designed to allow parties to raise issues that they overlooked when presenting their original case.” (See Farris v. Daigle (1995) 139 N.H. 453, 456; Brown v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1989) 131 N.H. 485, 492, 558 A.2d 822, 826.)

“We also note that, under our case law, trial courts have discretion whether to consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider.” (See Riso v. Riso (2019) 172 N.H. 173, 181 n.3.)

“Where a party raises an issue for the first time in a motion to reconsider, the trial court has the discretion to either not consider the issue or re-open the record and allow the parties to present evidence.” (See id; See Smith v. Shepard (1999)144 N.H. 262, 265, 740 A.2d 1039.)

“We typically do not consider issues on appeal unless the parties have raised them first in the trial court.” (See Stewart v. Farrel (1989) 131 N.H. 458, 463-64; Daboul v. Town of Hampton (1983) 124 N.H. 307, 309, 471 A.2d 1148, 1149.)

“We usually insist that the trial court be given an opportunity to address and rule on issues before they are presented to this court, and that we receive the benefit of a complete record, and full briefing and argument.” (See id; Weldy v. Town of Kingston (1986) 128 N.H. 325, 335, 514 A.2d 1257, 1263; Appeal of Bosselait (1988) 130 N.H. 604, 607, 547 A.2d 682, 686.)

“In this way we insure that our docket is not burdened with claims that could have been disposed of below, our limited time and resources are not overtaxed by the need for extensive original research, and our decision is reached only after we have considered all relevant facts and the strongest arguments presented on each side.” (See id.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment

Rule 4.8 of the New Hampshire Circuit Court District Division governs motions for reconsideration.

“A motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be filed within ten (10) days of the date on the clerk's written notice of the order or decision.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Sm. Clm. 4.8(a).)

“The motion shall state the particular points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain the arguments in support of the motion as the filing party decides to present.” (See id.)

“A hearing on the motion shall not be permitted except by order of the court.” (See id.)

“No response to a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be required unless ordered by the court, but any answer or objection must be filed within ten (10) days of the filing of the motion.” (N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Sm. Clm. 4.8(b).)

“If a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief is granted, the court may revise its order or take other appropriate action without re-hearing or may schedule a further hearing.” (N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Sm. Clm. 4.8(c).)

“The filing of a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall not stay any order of the court unless, upon specific written request, the court has ordered such a stay.” (N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Sm. Clm. 4.8(d).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment

“We will uphold a trial court's decision on a motion for reconsideration absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” (See id; State v. Lambert (2001) 147 N.H. 295, 296; Broom v. Continental Cas. Co. (2005) 152 N.H. 749, 752.)

“Unfortunately, appellate review based upon an abuse of discretion standard may be misunderstood by those not familiar with the concept of judicial discretion as misconduct by the trial judge.” (See State v. Lambert (2001) 147 N.H. 295, 296.)

“When we determine whether a ruling made by a judge is a proper exercise of judicial discretion, we are really deciding whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” (See id; Cf. Bianco, P.A. v. The Home Ins. Co. (2001) 147 N.H. 249, 251.)

“Because the ‘abuse of discretion’ standard may carry an inaccurate connotation, we will hereafter refer to it as the ‘unsustainable exercise of discretion’ standard.” (See State v. Lambert (2001) 147 N.H. 295, 296.)

“To show that the trial court's decision is not sustainable, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." (See id; State v. Johnson (2000) 145 N.H. 647, 648.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment

It is well settled that “the trial court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the appellant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues which could not have been presented to the trial court prior to its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration.” (See McDonough v. McDonough (2016) 169 N.H. 537, 545; LaMontagne Builders v. Bowman Brook Purchase Group (2003) 150 N.H. 270, 274, 837 A.2d 301.)

As such, it is also well settled that “ordinarily, we will not review arguments that were not timely raised before the trial court because trial courts should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” (See Camire v. Gunstock Area Comm'n (2014) 166 N.H. 374, 377; State v. Perfetto, No. 2022-0414, at *3 (N.H. Sep. 8, 2023).)