In the Matter of Naresh Matta and Sangeeta Matta

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0522, In the Matter of Naresh Matta and
Sangeeta Matta, the court on July 20, 2015, issued the following
order:

Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct.
R. 18(1). We affirm.

The respondent, Sangeeta Matta, appeals a final decree issued by the
Circuit Court (Lemire, J.) in her divorce from the petitioner, Naresh Matta. See
RSA 458:7-a (2004). We construe the respondent’s brief to contend that the trial
court erred by: (1) granting the divorce; (2) failing to divide two assets that her
proposed decree awarded to the petitioner; (3) ordering the marital home sold as
contemplated in her proposed decree; (4) awarding her too little alimony; and (5)
denying her request to continue her direct testimony after she stated, at the end
of her lengthy direct testimony, in response to the trial court’s question, “[i]s
there anything else that you haven’t testified about that you would like me to
consider,” that “[f]or today, I am done.”

As the appealing party, the respondent has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s order, the respondent’s challenges to it, the relevant
law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the respondent has
not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk