Revision: Jan. 31, 2017, 8:26 a.m.
HJR 2-FN-A - AS INTRODUCED
2017 SESSION
17-0763
09/04
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 2-FN-A
SPONSORS: Rep. Brewster, Merr. 21
COMMITTEE: Legislative Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This house joint resolution requires the payment of money to Joseph Haas.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
17-0763
09/04
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seventeen
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
Whereas, in 1992, the New Hampshire supreme court clerk, in case #92-710 (138 NH 389) [March 31, 1994], failed to process a "notice of errors" filed by Joseph Haas; and
Whereas, in January 2015, the judicial council determined that the clerk should have processed the notice filed by Mr. Haas; and
Whereas, to compensate Mr. Haas for his loss due to the supreme court clerk's nonperformance, Mr. Haas seeks payment of $42,500, plus interest at 10 percent per annum compounded daily, to be paid from the faithful performance bond of the supreme court clerk maintained pursuant to RSA 93-B; now therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
That the general court hereby requires payment of $42,500, plus interest at 10 percent per annum compounded daily, to Joseph Haas. Said sum shall be a charge against the faithful performance bond of the supreme court clerk.
17-0763
1/23/17
HJR 2-FN-A- FISCAL NOTE
AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL IMPACT: [ ] State [ ] County [ ] Local [ X ] None
|
|
METHODOLOGY:
This bill requires the payment of $42,500 plus interest at 10 percent per annum compounded daily, to Joseph Haas. The amount shall be a charge against the faithful performance bond of the Supreme Court clerk. The bond is maintained by the Department of Administrative Services for coverage up to $200,000, but the coverage is for losses to the State and not to individual citizens. The individual would need to have a suit brought against the State for the alleged loss. However, the alleged loss dates back over 20 years and any such suit would be time-barred.
AGENCIES CONTACTED:
Judicial Branch (first contacted on January 17, 2017 for a fiscal note worksheet which has not been provided as of January 23, 2017. Information for this fiscal note was based on the fiscal note worksheet response provided by the Branch for HJR 4 during the 2016 session)