2014-0738 Nonprecedential Processed

Appeal of Nicolas Bosonetto & a.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Filed July 13, 2015

Opinion text

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0738, Appeal of Nicolas Bosonetto & a.,
the court on July 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 petitioners, Nicolas Bosonetto and Jill Bosonetto, appeal a decision
of the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) denying their request for an
abatement of property taxes assessed by the respondent, the Town of
Richmond (town), for the tax year 2012. We construe their brief to argue that
the BTLA erred in concluding that the petitioners failed to prove that RSA
674:41 (2008) precludes the town from issuing a building permit for their
property under any circumstances.

RSA chapter 541 governs our review of BTLA decisions. Appeal of City of
Lebanon, 161 N.H. 463, 467 (2011). Under RSA 541:13 (2007), we will not set
aside the BTLA’s order except for errors of law, unless we are satisfied, by a
clear preponderance of the evidence, that it is unjust or unreasonable. Appeal
of Liberty Assembly of God, 163 N.H. 622, 625 (2012). The BTLA’s findings of
fact are presumed prima facie lawful and reasonable. Id.; RSA 541:13. In
reviewing the BTLA’s findings, our task is not to determine whether we would
have found differently or to reweigh the evidence, but rather, to determine
whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record. See
Appeal of Wilson, 161 N.H. 659, 661 (2011). We review the BTLA’s rulings on
issues of law de novo. See id. at 661-62.

As the appealing parties, the petitioners have the burden of
demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).
Based upon our review of the BTLA’s well-reasoned decision, the petitioners’
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the BTLA’s
decision is clearly unreasonable or unlawful. See Appeal of Liberty Assembly of
God, 163 N.H. at 625.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk