Cited by

Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008) (stating that we review a trial court’s equitable order for an unsustainable exercise of discretion); National Shawmut Bank v. Cutter, 105 N.H. 206, 208 (1963) (explaining that replevin is a form of action that “has become impregnated with equitable principles”).

Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008) (stating that we review a trial court’s equitable order for an unsustainable exercise of discretion); National Shawmut Bank v. Cutter, 105 N.H. 206, 208 (1963) (explaining that replevin is a form of action that “has become impregnated with equitable principles”).

“The party asserting that a trial court order is unsustainable must demonstrate that the ruling was unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of his case.” Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008).

To show that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion, the petitioner must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

fs argue that, in allocating an enhanced share of the proceeds to them because the defendants “effectively precluded them in some circumstances from utilizing the [subject] property as a vacation home” over several years, the trial court erred by: (1) basing their enhanced share upon the amount that they had contributed to the property’s expenses during the relevant period, see Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 333-34 (2008) (upholding trial court’s decision to reduce partitioning party’s share o

The propriety of affording equitable relief in a particular case rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.

“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.” Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 333 (2009) (quotation and brackets omitted).

The party asserting that a trial court order is unsustainable “must demonstrate that the ruling was 8 unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of his case.” Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008).

“The party asserting that a trial court order is unsustainable must demonstrate that the ruling was unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of his case.” Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008).

To show that the trial court’s order is unsustainable, the petitioner must demonstrate that the ruling was unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of his case.

ok[ing] the import of applying equitable considerations”; (2) “presuming joint tenancy led to equal division of the property”; and (3) not considering “the need to sell the property and the effect of the homestead right.” An action for partition calls upon the trial court to exercise its equity powers and consider the special circumstances of the case in order to achieve complete justice.

“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.” Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 333 (2008) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008) (quotation, citations, and ellipsis omitted).

The party asserting that a trial court's order is unsustainable must demonstrate that the ruling was unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of its case.

The party asserting that a trial court’s order is unsustainable must demonstrate that the ruling was unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of its case.

“The propriety of affording equitable relief in a particular case rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008) (quotation omitted).

In this case, there is no doubt that a proceeding for partition is a controversy concerning property.

The propriety of affording equitable relief in a particular case rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.