## Facts

- Lorraine Tessier sued attorney Regina S. Rockefeller and her law firm, Nixon Peabody, LLP, based on actions taken while Rockefeller represented Dr. Frederick Jakobiec in a dispute involving Lorraine’s husband, attorney Thomas Tessier.
- Rockefeller allegedly accused Thomas Tessier of misusing and converting substantial assets belonging to the Jakobiec family.
- Lorraine alleged Rockefeller repeatedly threatened Thomas Tessier (and, through him, Lorraine) with reporting to professional discipline authorities and potential criminal proceedings unless money was repaid, and stated that repayment would end the matter.
- Lorraine alleged she executed, under duress, a reverse mortgage on the family home, released her homestead interest, and entered a settlement agreement dated April 2, 2007.
- Lorraine further alleged that defendants’ conduct over the next two years stripped her and her husband of interests in their tangible assets, including jointly held property.
- Despite the settlement and allegedly without notice to the Tessiers, defendants allegedly reported Thomas Tessier to his law partner, the attorney discipline office, and others; Jakobiec retained new counsel to sue Thomas Tessier and foreclose on the reverse mortgage.
- Lorraine alleged severe emotional and physical distress requiring hospitalization, and loss of her husband’s care and comfort due to his suffering and treatment.

## Issues

1. Whether the writ stated a claim for abuse of process based on threatened and pursued disciplinary, criminal, and civil proceedings.
2. Whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. Whether, under Rule 12(b)(6), the writ alleged sufficient facts to proceed on other pleaded claims, including tortious interference with advantageous relations, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence-based supervision theories.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the abuse of process claim.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The court reversed dismissal of other claims, holding the pleadings alleged sufficient facts to support multiple causes of action at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes pleaded facts are true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor; dismissal is proper only when the plaintiff cannot recover under any set of provable facts consistent with the pleadings.
- Abuse of process requires (1) an improper purpose and (2) an act using legal process in a manner not proper in the regular prosecution of proceedings; threats or pursuit of authorized proceedings, without misuse of process after issuance, is insufficient.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all bounds of decency; aggressive legal demands and pursuit of reporting or civil remedies, as pleaded here, did not meet that threshold.
- Claims alleging coercion, duress in obtaining property-related agreements, and foreseeable severe emotional harm may be sufficient at the pleading stage to proceed on negligence-based and interference-type theories, and related firm-liability theories, even if abuse of process and IIED fail.

## Conclusion

The court held that the pleadings did not show misuse of legal process or conduct extreme enough for IIED, but they plausibly alleged coercive and harmful conduct sufficient to proceed on other tort and negligence claims under New Hampshire’s Rule 12(b)(6) standard.


Tessier v. Rockefeller, 33 A.3d 1118 (N.H. 2011)