Valhouli v. Coulouras

12 Citing cases

  1. Jenot v. White Mt. Acceptance Corp.

    124 N.H. 701 (N.H. 1984)   Cited 25 times
    In Jenot, the Court held that a shareholder of a defunct corporation could foreclose on a mortgage and seek to enforce a promissory note given to the corporation because โ€œthe right to the mortgage and the promissory note automatically descend[ed] to the former shareholdersโ€ when the corporation failed to enforce or assign its rights under the mortgage and promissory note within the wind-up period that was then applicable.Id. at 707.

    However, "[n]either law nor equity nor science has been able to develop any mechanical gauge that will automatically tell litigants or the court the number of months or years that are required to constitute reasonable promptness in bringing a suit to avoid the defense of laches." Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 322, 142 A.2d 711, 712-13 (1958). [17, 18] Mere lapse of time alone is not enough to establish laches.

  2. Estate of Price v. Hodkin

    2019 UT App. 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    In support of this argument, Amy cites Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latterโ€“Day Saints v. Horne , 2012 UT 66, 289 P.3d 502, which approvingly quoted a New Hampshire Supreme Court decision that stated, "Delay for an unreasonable length of time in bringing the suit after knowledge of the breach may be the basis for the equitable defense of laches." Id. ยถ 32 (emphasis added) (quoting Valhouli v. Coulouras , 101 N.H. 320, 142 A.2d 711, 713 (1958) ). However, the quoted language relied on by Amy is only a portion of the entire quote, which our Supreme Court cited in support of its holding that one of its prior cases should be read to mean that " โ€˜harm to the plaintiffโ€™ is a factor that works with lachesโ€”not within itโ€”to evaluate whether an injunction for restrictive covenant violations or the like is proper."

  3. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne

    2012 UT 66 (Utah 2012)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that even constitutional claims can be time-barred

    In these disputes, โ€œharm to the plaintiffโ€ is a factor that works with lachesโ€”not within itโ€”to evaluate whether an injunction for restrictive covenant violations or the like is proper. ยถ 32 Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 142 A.2d 711 (1958), involved one such dispute and sheds light on this court's approach in Papanikolas. In that case, the defendant built two dwellings on his land where a covenant allowed only one, and the plaintiff complained, requesting a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to remove the second dwelling.

  4. Bogardus v. Zinkevicz

    134 N.H. 527 (N.H. 1991)   Cited 6 times

    However, "the enforcement of a restrictive covenant by injunctive relief may be denied because of the conduct of the parties." Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 322, 142 A.2d 711, 713 (1958). The doctrine of laches is a defense to the enforcement of restrictive covenants.

  5. Estate of Younge v. Huysmans

    127 N.H. 461 (N.H. 1985)   Cited 14 times

    The issue of laches is "a question of fact for the trier of fact." North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 325, 461 A.2d 114, 116 (1983) (citing Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 323, 142 A.2d 711, 713 (1958)). The question of whether or not laches bars a particular claim is determined not only by the length of time involved, but also by the inequity of permitting a cause of action because of a change in the conditions of the property or the parties involved.

  6. Appeal of Plantier

    126 N.H. 500 (N.H. 1985)   Cited 39 times
    Applying the same test under the New Hampshire Constitution

    In determining whether to apply laches, "`[n]either law nor equity nor science has been able to develop any mechanical gauge that will automatically tell litigants or the court the number of months or years that are required to constitute reasonable promptness in bringing a suit to avoid the defense of laches.'" Jenot v. White Mt. Acceptance Corp., supra at 710, 474 A.2d at 1387 (quoting Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 322, 142 A.2d 711, 712-13 (1958)). "The party asserting laches bears the burden of proving both that the delay was unreasonable and that prejudice resulted from the delay."

  7. North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell

    461 A.2d 114 (N.H. 1983)   Cited 10 times
    In North Bay Council, Inc. v. Grinnell, 123 N.H. 321, 324 (1983), we stated that a "strict application" of the rule against perpetuities would invalidate a deed provision which gave the grantor and his heirs or assigns a right of first refusal of unlimited duration to repurchase the subject property from the grantee and its successors by matching the highest bona fide offer made by a third party.

    [6-8] Whether a party is guilty of laches is a question of fact for the trier of fact. See Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 323, 142 A.2d 711, 713 (1958). We will not disturb the master's finding unless it is unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.

  8. Phinney v. Levine

    381 A.2d 735 (N.H. 1977)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that defendant's delay in foreclosing on the mortgage constituted laches barring any rights under the notes

    1975); D. Dobbs, Remedies 2.3, at 30 (1973); G. Osborne, Mortgages 10,314, at 657 (2d ed. 1970), and as such is subject to the equitable defense of laches. See Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 142 A.2d 711 (1958); Stefani v. Merrimack River Sav. Bank, 90 N.H. 10, 12-13, 3 A.2d 645, 647 (1939). In the instant case, defendant's delay in foreclosing on the mortgage constitutes laches barring any rights under the mortgage.

  9. City of Laconia v. Becraft

    367 A.2d 580 (N.H. 1976)

    However, I would remand this case for consideration of the question whether laches or disproportionate harm as to benefit or a combination of the two should result in a denial of an injunction. Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 142 A.2d 711 (1958); Johnson v. Shaw, 101 N.H. 182, 137 A.2d 399 (1957); New England Tel. Tel. Co. v. Mitchell, 114 N.H. 478, 322 A.2d 613 (1974); Restatement of Property ยง 563, Comment c (1944).

  10. Lovell v. Harvey

    319 A.2d 292 (N.H. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    "The issue as to laches is primarily one of fact." Hould v. Company, 83 N.H. 474, 476, 144 A. 261, 263 (1929); Valhouli v. Coulouras, 101 N.H. 320, 142 A.2d 711 (1958). It is apparent that the trial court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation for the hiatus in 1967 and 1968 and of the generally persistent efforts of the plaintiffs to force completion of the transaction.