Pursuant to RSA 677:15, I, “persons aggrieved” by a planning board decision have standing to file a petition for review of that decision in superior court. To be considered a person aggrieved, a litigant must have “direct definite interest in the outcome of the proceedings.” Here, a developer whose deal with a property owner to purchase and subdivide a parcel of land fell apart, attempted to keep litigation going against the town, even after the property owner withdrew from the case.
The plaintiff, Joyce, entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the property owner for a parcel land. The agreement called for Joyce to seek subdivision approval from the planning board. The seller executed a power of attorney to allow Joyce to go before the planning board for subdivision approval. Before the subdivision application was acted on, the town adopted an interim growth management ordinance (IGMO) which effectively halted the subdivision contemplated under the purchase and sale agreement. Both the buyer and seller joined together to file suit against the town, challenging the constitutionality of the IGMO.
Before the case could be resolved in court, the relationship between the buyer and seller deteriorated. The purchase and sale agreement expired and was not extended. The seller revoked the power of attorney, ending Joyce’s right to act for the seller/property owner. The property owner withdrew from the court case, deciding not to continue to litigate the constitutionality of the IGMO. The owner instead filed his own application for subdivision with the planning board. Joyce sued the seller to regain control of the property and sought to continue the suit against the town. The town moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Joyce lacked standing to continue with the case because he no longer had an interest in the property.
The Court agreed with the town, dismissing claims by Joyce that the money he invested in the property in preparation of the subdivision application, as well as the pending civil suit against the property owner that, if successful, might result in the award of an interest in the property, constituted a “direct definite interest in the outcome of the proceedings” to have standing to appeal.