Cited by

“[O]ccupancy is essential to the existence of the homestead right.” Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 88 (2006) (quotation omitted).

Spurred by considerations of judicial economy and a policy of certainty and finality in our legal system, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel have been established to avoid repetitive litigation so that at some point litigation over a particular controversy must come to an end.

We conclude that this argument is insufficiently developed for our review.

Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 81 (2006) (observing that “as a general rule.

Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 78 (2006) (noting that a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant appellate review).

Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 78 (2006) (noting that a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant appellate review).

“Because the defendant, as the moving party, did not meet his burden of showing that there were no genuine issues of material fact, the plaintiff, as the opposing party, was not required to rebut [its] showing.” Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 86 (2006).

To the extent that the plaintiffs’ brief raises additional arguments, we conclude that they are insufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), and warrant no further consideration, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993); see also Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 78 (2006) (noting that “a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial review”) (quotation omitted).

“The homestead right is generally exempt from attachment or encumbrance.” Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 88 (2006).

“[U]nless and until [a defendant’s] conviction is overturned, it is deemed valid....” Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 85 (2006) (noting that a conviction is entitled to preclusive effect under collateral estoppel doctrine unless and until overturned); cf. United States v. Coleman, 458 F.3d 453, 457 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that “criminal convictions remain valid and in force pending appeal, unless the district court rules otherw

However, the City was not required to submit such evidence because GSMR failed to establish that there is no genuine issue as to those material facts.

”; (2) “the enforcement of liens of mechanics and others for debts created in the construction, repair or improvement of the homestead”; (3) “the enforcement of mortgages which are made a charge thereon according to law”; and (4) “the levy of executions as provided in this chapter.” The purpose of the homestead exemption is to secure to debtors and their families the shelter of the homestead roof.

Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 80-81 (2006) (quotation and citation omitted).

Under RSA 480:1 (Supp. 2011), “[e]very person is entitled to $100,000 worth of his or her homestead, or of his or her interest therein, as a homestead.” “The purpose of the homestead exemption is to secure to debtors and their families, the shelter of the homestead roof; not to exempt mere investments in real estate, or the rents and profits derived therefrom.” Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 88 (2006) (quotation omitted).

Analysis A. Standard of Review We will affirm a trial court’s grant of summary judgment if, considering the evidence and all inferences properly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant, our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We will affirm a trial court's grant of summary judgment if, considering the evidence and all inferences properly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant, our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We will affirm a trial court’s grant of summary judgment if, considering the evidence and all inferences properly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant, our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to *581 judgment as a matter of law.

We will affirm a trial court’s grant of summary judgment if, considering the evidence and all inferences properly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant, our review of that evidence discloses no *713 genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.