Richard Maville v. Mindy B. Maville

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0396, Richard Maville v. Mindy B. Maville,
the court on February 12, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs 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 defendant, Mindy Maville, appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(Spath, J.) granting the request by the plaintiff, Richard Maville, to extend a
domestic violence order of protection against her. See RSA 173-B:5, IV (2014).
The trial court reasoned that “good cause exists and that the plaintiff still has
present and reasonable fears for his safety and well-being” due to the defendant’s
actions when exchanging the parties’ children and at the end of an April school
break.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred and denied her due
process by: (1) requesting that the plaintiff testify, and allowing testimony,
regarding certain acts that were not identified in detail in the petition; (2)
allowing the proceeding to go forward on a petition she claimed to be “overly
vague”; (3) limiting testimony to the three circumstances that the plaintiff
claimed showed good cause for the extension; (4) failing to find that certain facts
were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel based upon a marital court
proceeding; (5) limiting her cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witness and
determining the credibility of witnesses without such cross-examination; (6)
referring in its order to certain information she claims was not part of the record;
(7) granting the extension without proof that she had violated previous domestic
violence protective orders; (8) failing to consider evidence submitted with her
motion for reconsideration or to hold a hearing on the motion; (9) not addressing
who was the “primary aggressor” in the event giving rise to the original protective
order; (10) not admitting certain photographic evidence; (11) crediting the
plaintiff’s testimony regarding certain events; (12) relying upon certain testimony
from the plaintiff’s witness; and (13) not sequestering the plaintiff’s witness.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___, 101 A.3d 1183, 1186 (2014).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the defendant’s challenges to it,
the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
defendant has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
 In light of this order, the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s brief
and appendix and to alter future deadlines, and the plaintiff’s motion to strike
the defendant’s brief and dismiss the appeal, are moot.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2