William Fortune v. P.H. Collins Builders, LLC & a.

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Decided: April 29, 2016
• Docket: 2015-0390
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0390, William Fortune v. P.H. Collins Builders, LLC & a., the court on April 29, 2016, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The plaintiff, William Fortune, appeals a small claim judgment issued by the Circuit Court (Morrison, J.) in favor of the defendants, P.H. Collins Builders, LLC, Pernell H. Collins, and Lorri L. Collins. We construe the plaintiff’s brief to argue that the trial court: (1) “acted as . . . an expert witness for the Defendants by judging that the [plaintiff’s duct work] design had no value”; (2) “encouraged . . . the Defendants to obfuscate”; (3) stopped recording the hearing “and did not record the Plaintiff’s statement that the duct work is shown in the center of the building for drafting convenience and . . . could be located anywhere, preferably, against the wall where the furnace would be located”; (4) denied him the opportunity to rebut the defendants’ arguments; (5) overlooked that the plaintiff’s receipt for defendant Lorri Collins’s check was a written agreement, even though the defendants had not signed it; (6) overlooked that “‘load calculations’ . . . were part of the design”; (7) erred in not finding that “Plaintiff would not have considered providing a . . . system design” had he not been “duped into thinking that the Defendants were contractors/home builders”; and (8) erred by employing its notes and recollection to reconstruct the final nine minutes of the hearing missing from the transcript. Any issues raised in the notice of appeal, but not fully briefed, are deemed waived. Mountain View Park, LLC v. Robson, 168 N.H. 117, 121 (2015). We decline to review issues that have not been fully briefed. State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk