Sharon D. Wessel & a. v. Marion Grimes & a.
Sharon D. Wessel & a. v. Marion Grimes & a., No. 2014-0538 (N.H. Mar. 13, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0538, Sharon D. Wessel & a. v. Marion Grimes & a., the court on March 13, 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 defendants’ challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the defendants 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.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0538, Sharon D. Wessel & a. v. Marion
Grimes & a., the court on March 13, 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 defendants, Marion C. Grimes and Pamela L. Bergeron, appeal the
order of the Superior Court (Kissinger, J.) granting summary judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs, Sharon Wessel, Christine Guerin, Thomas Chase, and David
Chase, on their petition to quiet title. The defendants argue that the trial court
erred in ruling that: (1) the right of first refusal contained in the deed to the
plaintiffs’ predecessors is a restrictive covenant that does not run with the
land; and (2) the absence of words of inheritance is relevant in determining the
parties’ intent.
As the appealing parties, the defendants have the burden of
demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the defendants’
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the defendants have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk