Cited by

The contempt power is discretionary and the proper inquiry is not whether we would have found the respondent in contempt, but whether the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion in doing so.

RSA 356-B:19, I. The purpose of this statute is to protect condominium unit owners’ interest in limited common areas.

Any reassignment of limited common area must be expressly provided for in the condominium instruments and comply with the terms of the Condominium Act.

We find support for this conclusion in our decision in Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232 (2015).

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

8 See Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232, 239 (2015) (“[W]e construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and avoid an absurd or unjust result.” (quotation omitted)).

Subsequently, Boat Works filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, under Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232 (2015), none of the previously filed amendments were valid because all of the affected owners had to agree to change pre-existing common or limited common areas.

Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232, 239 (2015) (concluding that, because issues raised on 2 appeal were, in fact, before the trial court, petitioner’s failure to cite references to record in brief did not require court to strike brief).

RSA 356-B:3, VI (2009); see Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232, 240 (2015) (explaining that “to create a condominium, certain ‘condominium instruments’ must be recorded with the registry of deeds in the county where the condominium is located”).

This preservation requirement, expressed in both our case law and Supreme Court Rule 16(3)(b), “reflects the general policy that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232, 238 (2015) (quotation omitted).

Because the two statutes at issue in this case impact the treatment of persons designated as habitual offenders, we construe them “so that they will lead to reasonable results and effectuate the legislative purpose of the statutes.” Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232, 241 (2015) (quotation omitted); see State v. Patterson, 145 N.H. 462, 465 (2000) (construing statutes dealing with similar subjects “so that they lead to reasonable results and do not contradict each other” (quotation omitted)).

“This requirement reflects the general policy that trial forums should have an opportunity to rule on issues and to correct errors before they are presented to the appellate court.” Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232, 238 (2015) (quotation omitted).

Similarly, we must interpret RSA 32:5, V-a in the context of the overall statutory scheme.