Peter E. Hutchins & a. v. Beverly A. Hollingworth

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0246, Peter E. Hutchins & a. v. Beverly A.
Hollingworth, the court on March 16, 2015, issued the following
order:

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record submitted on appeal,
we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R.
18(1). The plaintiffs, Peter E. and Kathy G. Hutchins, appeal an order of the
Superior Court (Delker, J.), which, following a view and an evidentiary hearing,
partially granted and partially denied the motion for contempt filed by the
defendant, Beverly A. Hollingworth. We affirm.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erroneously found
them in contempt of the court’s 2010 order, which we affirmed in 2012. The
2010 order deemed the defendant entitled to a twelve-and-one-half-foot right of
way across Great Boars Avenue. In that order, the trial court found that a
right of way of that width offers the defendant “a reasonably good sized traveled
way, reasonable parking space, plus some footage on each side for snow/ice
removal and treatment and other maintenance.” The 2010 order provided that,
because the right of way “is there for the particular use and benefit of [the
defendant],” the plaintiffs are precluded from placing or maintaining “any
permanent objects or other objects within the [right of way] area that interfere
or impede [defendant’s] usage,” and must remove “any such objects” at their
own expense.

The trial court found that the plaintiffs were in contempt of the 2010
order because they have planted sea grass and flower beds, placed furniture,
and installed Belgian blocks, stakes, and granite posts within the right of way,
thus, impeding the defendant’s use of it for travel. The plaintiffs assert that
they are not in contempt of the 2010 order because the order: (1) did not
require them to remove any specific items; (2) did not require them to remove
all objects within the right of way; and (3) did not provide that the entire right
of way was available for travel. They further contend that the record does not
support the trial court’s finding that they interfered with the defendant’s use of
the right of way. They also argue that the record does not support the trial
court’s finding that they violated the 2010 order willfully.

As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. See Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon
our review of the trial court’s narrative order, the plaintiffs’ challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
plaintiffs have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
 The parties each request an award of attorney’s fees on appeal pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule 23, which allows us to award fees “if the appeal is
deemed . . . to have been frivolous or in bad faith.” We deny both requests,
without prejudice to the defendant requesting taxation of costs. See Sup. Ct.
R. 23.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2