In the Matter of Tammy Rokowski and Shane Rokowski
168 N.H. 57 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court may not conduct its own independent factual research on the internet, as information from sources like Zillow is not a proper subject for judicial notice because its accuracy can reasonably be questioned.
Facts:
- Tammy Rokowski and Shane Rokowski married in 1990.
- After the birth of their first child in 1995, Tammy Rokowski stopped working outside the home.
- In 1997, Shane Rokowski's grandparents conveyed a two-family home in Connecticut to him, reserving a life estate for themselves; the Rokowski family lived in one unit while the grandparents lived in the other.
- Shane Rokowski's businesses were lucrative and produced substantial cash proceeds, and he maintained control over the family's finances.
- In 2006, Tammy Rokowski and the children moved to New Hampshire, while Shane Rokowski remained in Connecticut.
- The parties' relationship began to deteriorate around 2010.
- The primary marital assets to be divided in the divorce were the Connecticut home and Shane Rokowski's businesses.
- At trial, neither party provided the court with formal appraisals for the value of the home or the businesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Tammy Rokowski filed a petition for divorce against Shane Rokowski in the New Hampshire Circuit Court (trial court).
- After a two-day final hearing, the Circuit Court granted the divorce, issued a final decree distributing marital assets and debts, and awarded alimony to Tammy Rokowski.
- Shane Rokowski filed a motion for reconsideration with the Circuit Court, which was denied.
- Shane Rokowski (respondent-appellant) appealed the Circuit Court's final decree to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by conducting its own internet research on a website like Zillow to determine the value of marital property, when that information is not part of the evidentiary record and does not qualify for judicial notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Dalianis, C.J.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by relying on its own internet research to ascertain facts, as such information falls outside the evidentiary record and fails to meet the standard for judicial notice. A court cannot go outside the evidentiary record except for matters properly subject to judicial notice. Under New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 201, a fact may be judicially noticed only if it is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is either generally known or 'capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.' The court determined that a property value estimate from Zillow, or a 'Zestimate,' does not meet this standard because it is calculated from public and user-submitted data of untested accuracy. Because the trial court improperly relied on its Zillow research to value the marital home—a primary asset—and to select a valuation date, its error requires vacating the entire property distribution and the related alimony award.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that a judge must act as a neutral arbiter, relying solely on evidence presented by the parties within the adversarial system. It serves as a significant modern precedent addressing the limits of judicial fact-finding in the internet age, explicitly categorizing popular but unverified online sources like Zillow as improper for judicial notice. The ruling clarifies that convenience cannot override evidentiary standards, forcing litigants to meet their burden of proof with reliable evidence, such as expert appraisals, rather than relying on the court to fill evidentiary gaps. This holding protects the integrity of the trial process by preventing judges from becoming independent investigators.
