"Affirm It… But If It’s Wrong, Send It Back?” — Hampton’s Astonishing Legal Exit Strategy

Wait... Did the Town Just Admit the Real Issues Were Never Decided?

The Town of Hampton's conclusion is striking.

First, the Town asks the New Hampshire Supreme Court to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the taxpayers' case. But then comes the astonishing part: if the Supreme Court determines the trial court never addressed the claims as the taxpayers actually presented them, the Town asks that the case be sent back to the trial court for those issues to be reviewed.

That's a remarkable position.

The January Superior Court hearing was scheduled solely to decide the Town's Motion to Dismiss—not to decide the merits of the constitutional claims. Yet the taxpayers argue the case was instead reframed as one involving abatements, appraisal methodology, and statutory procedures, even though they maintain their central questions were about governmental authority and constitutionality.

Now, in the Town's own conclusion, it acknowledges the possibility that those claims were never addressed and asks for a remand if that's what the Supreme Court finds.

From the taxpayers' perspective, that raises an obvious question:

If the Town believes the trial court may not have addressed the actual claims, why should the dismissal stand at all?

The Town's filing appears to recognize the very possibility the taxpayers have argued from the beginning—that the core constitutional questions were never decided. Whether that amounts to an admission is ultimately for readers and the Court to judge, but it is certainly an unusual request in a brief that otherwise asks the Supreme Court to affirm the dismissal.