Robert Baker v. President, Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condominium Association, Inc.
Robert Baker v. President, Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condominium Association, Inc., No. 2014-0351 (N.H. Feb. 19, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0351, Robert Baker v. President, Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condominium Association, Inc., the court on February 19, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condominium Unit Ass'n v. Smith 163 N.H. 751
- ERG, Inc. v. Barnes 137 N.H. 186
- 103 A.3d 1183 not in our corpus
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0351, Robert Baker v. President,
Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condominium Association, Inc., the
court on February 19, 2015, issued the following order:
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The plaintiff, Robert Baker, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Houran, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendant, Enid Burrows,
president of Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condominium Association, Inc.
(condominium association), on his claim for malicious prosecution. The trial
court ruled that: (1) the condominium association, and not the defendant, had
instituted Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condo. Unit Assoc. v. Smith, 163 N.H. 751
(2012), one of two prior actions identified in the complaint, see ERG, Inc. v.
Barnes, 137 N.H. 186, 190 (1993) (stating elements of malicious prosecution); (2)
even if the defendant had instituted Smith, she had probable cause, see id.; and
(3) the plaintiff conceded that any relief he seeks in connection with Hilton &
Lake Kanasatka Assoc. v. Kilnwood on Kanasatka Condo. Unit Assoc., No. 212-
2010-CV-00297 (Carroll County Super. Ct.), the second action identified in the
complaint, depends upon the success of his malicious prosecution claim arising
out of Smith. On appeal, the plaintiff raises twenty-five questions challenging the
trial court’s order. The defendant counters that the reasons articulated by the
trial court were correct, that the plaintiff is collaterally estopped from establishing
probable cause by the trial court’s order denying an award of attorney’s fees in
Smith, and that the plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish the elements of
malicious prosecution with respect to Hilton.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___, 103 A.3d 1183, 1186 (2014).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the plaintiff’s
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk