Douglas Coulter v. Bank of America

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0072, Douglas Coulter v. Bank of America,
the court on November 3, 2020, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.

The plaintiff, Douglas Coulter, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Vetanze, J.) dismissing his claims against the defendant, Bank of America,
based upon the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

We first address the plaintiff’s argument that the court erred in ruling
that his claims are barred by res judicata. “Res judicata precludes the
litigation in a later case of matters actually decided, and matters that could
have been litigated, in an earlier action between the same parties for the same
cause of action.” Sleeper v. Hoban Family P’ship, 157 N.H. 530, 533 (2008).
“For the doctrine to apply, three elements must be met: (1) the parties must be
the same or in privity with one another; (2) the same cause of action must be
before the court in both instances; and (3) a final judgment on the merits must
have been rendered in the first action.” Id. On appeal, the plaintiff has the
burden to demonstrate error. Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001).

The plaintiff does not dispute that this is the eighth small claim case he
has brought against the defendant since 2017. Although he asserts that the
prior matters were “completely unrelated to the current case,” the record shows
otherwise. The prior actions and the present case are based upon the same
factual transactions, starting in 2015 and ending in 2017, involving two credit
card accounts, including allegedly fraudulent charges on one account and the
consequences resulting therefrom, and the defendant’s allegedly erroneous
closing of the other account due to a delinquency. Although the plaintiff’s
allegations in this case may emphasize different aspects of the dispute or seek
recovery under different theories, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
the trial court erred by implicitly determining that such allegations were
litigated or could have been litigated in the prior actions, and that the prior
cases were resolved by final judgments on the merits. See Sleeper, 157 N.H. at
533; Colye, 147 N.H. at 100.
 In light of our decision, we need not address the plaintiff’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).

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2