Here are some family court rules and laws that relate to family matters that I have come accross in my research that are helping (or should help) in my domestic matters.
Unfortunately, the Judges and courts don’t seem to follow them. This is not legal advice, and you should understand the risks of being alive without an attorney. They have magical powers that you simply cannot understand, and their divine words are gospel in the eyes of society and our legal system. (satire)
Chapter 507 ACTIONS
Section 507:11
507:11 Change of Venue. – The superior court may change the venue in any civil proceeding when justice or convenience requires it.
Source. 1907, 135:1. PL 328:3. RL 384:3.
Frivolous Lawsuits and Punitive Damages
Section 507:15
507:15 Penalties for Frivolous Actions. – If, upon the hearing of any contract or tort action, it clearly appears to the court that the action or any defense is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the prevailing party, then the court, upon motion of the prevailing party or on its own motion, may order summary judgment against the party who brought such action or raised such defense, and award the amount of costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the prevailing party plus $1,000 to be paid to the prevailing party, provided such costs and fees are reasonable. The trial judge shall also report such conduct to the supreme court committee on professional conduct.
Source. 1986, 227:3. 1996, 2:2, eff. July 1, 1996.
Section 507:15-a
507:15-a Vexatious Litigants. –
I. In this section, ” vexatious litigant ” means an individual who has been found by a judge to have filed 3 or more frivolous lawsuits which the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, were initiated for the primary purpose of harassment.
II. The court may require a vexatious litigant to:
(a) Retain an attorney or other person of good character to represent him or her in all actions; or
(b) Post a cash or surety bond sufficient to cover all attorney fees and anticipated damages.
Source. 2013, 181:1, eff. July 2, 2013.
Section 507:15-b
507:15-b Powers of Court. – RSA 507:15 and RSA 507:15-a shall not be construed to diminish the inherent power of any court to grant appropriate relief not specified in those sections.
Source. 2013, 181:1, eff. July 2, 2013.
Section 507:16
507:16 Punitive Damages Outlawed. – No punitive damages shall be awarded in any action, unless otherwise provided by statute.
Source. 1986, 227:3, eff. July 1, 1986.
Examples of General Compensatory Damages
General compensatory damages, meanwhile, include estimates of loss not involving actual monetary expenditure. Some courts use the “multiplier method,” which calculates general damages by multiplying the sum total of one’s actual damages by a number that signifies the seriousness of the injury.
In other jurisdictions, courts will use the “per diem” method, which attaches a dollar value to each day a plaintiff suffers and adds the value of all those days together. In some cases, a court will use a hybrid of these two methods to calculate general compensatory damages. These general compensatory damages include:
- Mental anguish
- Disfigurement
- Future medical expenses
- Future lost wages
- Long-term physical pain and suffering
- Loss of consortium
- Inconvenience
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Loss of opportunity
____________________________________________________ From Investopedia
Loss of Consortium Examples
As with most legal concepts, loss of consortium is easiest to understand in the context of a real case. So we scoured the lawsuits covered on ConsumerSafety.org and compiled the best examples below. Source
Decker v. GE Healthcare – $500,000
After receiving a contrast agent for a magnetic resonance imaging procedure, Karen Decker’s husband developed nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). Mr. and Mrs. Decker sued GE Healthcare for failing to warn them about this serious complication.
As a part of their lawsuit, they sought loss of consortium damages on behalf of Mrs. Decker for the injuries inflicted upon her marital relationship by Mr. Decker’s NSF. The jury awarded Karen $500,000 based upon the loss of consortium claim in this
