I sued in a small claims court in NH a contractor
who had fraudulently substituted the lowest possible flooring material for the highest one we had agreed upon initially. The man had brazenly played on being a distant relative of our close friends to cheat me.
The central point of the case was whether the defendant presented the invoice to me on the day of completion of the job, or fabricated it considerably later, at least four months later, as a matter of fact, after he received the Notice on Hearing.
In spite of the testimony of my two witnesses, an expert, and material evidence, the judge appallingly believed the unsubstantiated statement by the defendant and accepted the fake invoice as genuine.
It needs to note that for the first time the "invoice" was flashed by the defendant at the mandatory mediation, but I was denied a copy of the paper. I promptly moved a motion for a forensic examination of the defendant's computer on the subject of the true date of creation of the file, but the judge denied the motion without explanation of the reason.
Next time, on my demand, the defendant produced the fake invoice at the hearing, and on the judge's order I was given a copy. Unfortunately, that happened close to the end of the hearing, and I could not examine the invoice properly. I did that only when working on the appeal. What I found could have played crucial role during the hearing: When fabricating the invoice, the scum did not remember the volume of the job he had done in my home, and, having failed to extract that information from the contractor who redid his mess in my home a fortnight later, he perpetrated two gigantic blunders indicating absolutely wrong figures of the working space.
I promptly moved a motion for rehearing based on the discovery of a fraud and enclosed six pieces of paper evidence (a good part of it had been presented to the court earlier) which proved beyond any doubt the fake nature of the invoice. A copy of the motion was also sent by me to the Supreme Court.
As for the latter, I received a reply very soon. The clerk informed me that, by the order of a Court judge, my appeal had been ordered pending until my motion was considered by the trial court.
Today, after about two weeks of waiting, I received a letter from the court, in which the judge ordered that "All orders of this court are stayed pending the outcome of the supreme court appeal".
Now, I'd like to get answers to the next questions:
1. What does that mean, and what can I expect? I'm not a lawyer, and the situation appears a bit weird to me: the judge could have evidently either denied my motion, or granted it. He, however, chose to wait. Wait for what? There might be only two decisions by the Supreme Court: either the appeal will be allowed, or dismissed. If the first is the case, the name of the game is clear. But what if there is dismissal? Does the current position of my judge imply that he might grant me rehearing the case even after that? Or does it just mean that, having denied me my motion outright, and my appeal allowed by the Supreme Court, the judge might find himself in an awkward position? What is it all about?
2 . May I use my pending motion in my appeal in any way?