Cited by

Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (stating that collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense); Super.

Assuming, without deciding, that the defendant raised this issue in the trial court, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party to a prior action from relitigating any issue or fact actually litigated and determined in the prior action.

Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164-65 (2010) (explaining doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel); Taylor v. Nutting, 133 N.H. 451, 454-57 (1990) (explaining doctrine of law of the case).

Accordingly, “where a final order replaces a previously issued temporary order, the temporary order remains in effect during the pendency of any appeal unless the trial court specifically orders that the final order should remain in effect pending resolution of the appeal.” Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 167 (2010).

Div. R. 2.29 (providing that alimony and uniform support orders “are effective upon the issuance of the clerk’s notice of decision, unless the court specifies, either orally or in writing, another effective date”); Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 167-68 (2010) (holding that a trial court order becomes effective on the date it is rendered unless a party files an appeal or obtains a stay).

They argue that the trial court erred by denying their motion to hold the order “in abeyance.” However, by filing their appeal and adding the costs issues to it, the order was effectively stayed as a matter of law.

Generally, when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, we consider whether the petitioner’s allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

However, the respondent’s timely appeal stayed the trial court’s order from taking effect, see Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 167-68 (2010); Prob.

Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 167-68 (2010) (addressing when time to retrieve property began); accord In the 3 Matter of Eckroate-Breagy & Breagy, 170 N.H. 247, 250 (2017) (“generally a decree issued by the trial court does not go to final judgment if a timely appeal is taken”).

Ordinarily, a temporary order remains in effect during the pendency of any appeal of a final divorce decree, unless the trial court specifically orders that the final decree should take effect during the pendency of any appeal.

See, e.g., Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164-67 (2010) (holding that doctrine of res judicata barred action for recovery of personal property when plaintiff had opportunity to litigate his right to the property in prior domestic violence proceeding).

Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164-67 (2010) (applying doctrine of res judicata).

We review the trial court’s decision de novo.

“The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from relitigating matters actually litigated and matters that could have been litigated in the first action.” Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (quotation omitted).

The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from relitigating matters that were litigated, or could have been litigated, in a prior action.

In re Estate of Bergquist, 166 N.H. 531, 535 (2014); Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010).

Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 167-68 (2010); Rollins v. Rollins, 122 N.H. 6, 10 (1982); see also Fam.

The court observed that res judicata “is not a jurisdictional defense” and reasoned that, because the respondent had “raised no arguments that avoid the finality” of the court’s prior orders, the court had “no choice but to enforce its final judgment in favor of Petitioner.” See Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (stating that both res judicata and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses); Super.

ition, in his reply brief, he requests that we “exercise [our] original jurisdiction over this cause to consider and rule on measures to protect the minor [in the parenting case] from sexual abuse.” Generally, when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, we consider whether the plaintiff’s allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.

Singer Asset Finance Co. v. Wyner, 156 N.H. 468, 472 (2007) (“It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of matters not raised in the forum of trial.” (quotation omitted)); see also Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (stating that both res judicata and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses); Super.

“Generally, when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, we consider whether the [plaintiff’s] allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.” Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (“Res judicata...

“Generally, when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss, we consider whether the petitioner’s allegations are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.” Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (quotation omitted).

“The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from relitigating matters actually litigated and matters that could have been litigated in the first action.” Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (quotation omitted).

The doctrine applies if three elements are met: (1) the parties are the same or in privity with one another; (2) the same cause of action was before the court in both instances; and (3) the first action ended with a final judgment on the merits.

Appeal of Gallant, 125 N.H. 832, 835 (1984) (we will not interpret RSA chapter 282-A in a manner that would deny unemployment benefits to a faultless claimant); Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 166 (2010) (we construe statutes to avoid absurd or unjust results).

previously determined in [the 1984 decision], DES should have required NextEra to establish that the changes are not barred by [collateral estoppel, res judicata, or finality].” “[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party to a prior action, or a person in privity with such a party[,] from relitigating any issue or fact actually litigated and determined in the prior action.” Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (quotation omitted).

Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160, 164 (2010) (quotation omitted).