Tessier v. Rockefeller

33 A.3d 1118 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is the wife of Thomas Tessier, an attorney who practiced at the law firm of Christy & Tessier in Manchester. Dr. Frederick Jakobiec hired Attorney Tessier to handle certain estate matters on his behalf. On or about June 26, 2006, Attorney Rockefeller (D), an attorney employed by the firm of Nixon Peabody, acting on behalf of Dr. Jakobiec, accused Attorney Tessier of misusing and converting substantial assets of the Jakobiec family to his own use. P alleges that Attorney Rockefeller (D) met with Attorney Tessier on numerous occasions and threatened him and, through him, P, by demanding an immediate return of the misappropriated assets. Attorney Rockefeller (D) stated to Attorney Tessier that if he repaid the money no further action would be taken against him. If payment was not forthcoming, Attorney Rockefeller (D) would report his malfeasance to, among others, the New Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office. She also threatened that criminal proceedings against Attorney Tessier would follow. As a result of the threats, P alleges that she was forced “under duress” to execute a reverse mortgage on, and the release of her homestead interest in, the family home in Manchester and a settlement agreement dated April 2, 2007. Over the next two years, Ds “stripped” P and her husband of their individual and joint interests in all of their tangible assets, including a jointly held vacation property in Vermont. Ds reported Attorney Tessier's actions to his law partner, the attorney discipline office, and others. In addition, Dr. Jakobiec hired an attorney to bring suit against Attorney Tessier and to foreclose on the mortgage that was the subject of the settlement agreement. P sued Ds. P alleges that she suffered severe emotional and physical distress requiring hospitalization. P states specific claims for abuse of process, tortious interference with advantageous contractual relationships, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior liability, and negligent failure to train and supervise. P also alleges a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Ds moved to dismiss claiming they owed no legal duty to P. The ruled that the writ failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and dismissed it. P appealed.