Richard H. Daley & a. v. Linda K. Babigian
Richard H. Daley & a. v. Linda K. Babigian, No. 2014-0371 (N.H. Feb. 19, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0371, Richard H. Daley & a. v. Linda K. Babigian, the court on February 19, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs, the memorandum of law, and the 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 petitioners’ challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioners have 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.
- 103 A.3d 1183 not in our corpus
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0371, Richard H. Daley & a. v. Linda K.
Babigian, the court on February 19, 2015, issued the following
order:
Having considered the briefs, the memorandum of law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The petitioners, Ann Daley and Richard Daley, appeal an order of the
Superior Court (Delker, J.) granting partial summary judgment in favor of the
respondent, Linda Babigian, on her counterclaim. They argue that the trial court
erred by applying “a rule of law developed in connection with commercial
negotiable instruments – that the statute of limitations runs from each
installment in an installment contract – . . . in the context of real estate
mortgages where the legislature has specified that the limitations period runs
from the date when the ‘right to recover first accrue[s].’”
As the appealing parties, the petitioners have 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 petitioners’
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the petitioners have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk