Peter N. Bookas v. Irene Liakakos
Peter N. Bookas v. Irene Liakakos, No. 2014-0764 (N.H. June 19, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0764, Peter N. Bookas v. Irene Liakakos, the court on June 19, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Therefore, we conclude that the plaintiff’s argument is not preserved for our review.
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.
- Bean v. Red Oak Property Management, Inc. 151 N.H. 248
- Tessier v. Rockefeller 162 N.H. 324
- New Hampshire Department of Corrections v. Butland 147 N.H. 676
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0764, Peter N. Bookas v. Irene Liakakos,
the court on June 19, 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 plaintiff, Peter Bookas, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Temple, J.) dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his complaint against the
defendant, Irene Liakakos. The plaintiff contends that “[t]his case should be
remanded to the superior court for an oral hearing and reconsideration” because
he has new evidence, consisting of his affidavit, that the defendant “made a
misrepresentation when conveying to herself joint tenant rights” in real property
belonging to him and that the defendant “made materially false statements that
the document [he] was signing . . . was a will.”
It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of issues
they did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004). The record does not establish that the plaintiff moved to amend his
complaint to include the alleged misrepresentations, see Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324, 332 (2011) (stating fraud must be pleaded with specificity), or
otherwise brought the new allegations to the trial court’s attention in a timely
motion for reconsideration, see Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(e); N.H. Dep’t of Corrections
v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002). Therefore, we conclude that the plaintiff’s
argument is not preserved for our review.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk