Cited by

RSA 547-C:22,:25 (2019); DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 104-05 (2005); 17 Charles Szypszak, New Hampshire Practice: Real Estate § 3.10(C), at 91-92 (2d ed. 2023).

We review the trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo.

We defer to the trial court’s resolution as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given evidence.

The “trier of fact is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence.” DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005) (quotation omitted).

We review the probate division’s interpretation of a statute de novo.

The “trier of fact is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence.” DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005) (quotation omitted).

“An action for partition calls upon the court to exercise its equity powers and consider the special circumstances of the case, in order to achieve complete justice.” DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005).

“[T]he trier of fact is in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence.” DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005) (quotation omitted).

We review the probate division's interpretation of a statute de novo.

The trial court found, however, that neither party “added to or subtracted from the value of the Property in any demonstrable way.” We will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous.

DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005) (“An action for partition calls upon the court to exercise its equity powers and consider the special circumstances of the case, in order to achieve complete justice.”).

We will not disturb the trial court’s decree unless it is unsupported by the evidence or plainly erroneous as a matter of law.

We will not overturn the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, Pedersen v. Brook, 151 N.H. 65, 66 (2004), mindful that as the trier of fact, the trial judge was free to accept or reject whatever evidence was presented, and was not compelled to believe even uncontested evidence, DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005).

*333 “An action for partition calls upon the court to exercise its equity powers and consider the special circumstances of the case[ ] in order to achieve complete justice.” DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005).

This court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.

This court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.

This court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.

This court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.