Kenneth E. Blevens, Sr. v. Town of Bow

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0818, Kenneth E. Blevens, Sr. v. Town of
Bow, the court on June 22, 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 petitioner, Kenneth E. Blevens, Sr., appeals an order of the Superior
Court (McNamara, J.) granting summary judgment to the respondent, the
Town of Bow, on his petition seeking to restore historic lots that he claims the
town “involuntarily merged” through certain actions that are described in
Blevens v. Town of Bow, 146 N.H. 67, 68-69 (2001). See RSA 674:39-aa, II
(Supp. 2014) (describing procedure for restoring lots that have been
involuntarily merged by a municipality prior to September 18, 2010). In
granting summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the petitioner had
voluntarily merged the lots by conduct indicating that he regarded the lots as
merged. See RSA 674:39-aa, I(c) (Supp. 2014); Town of Newbury v. Landrigan, 165 N.H. 236, 239 (2013). Specifically, the trial court concluded that the
petitioner had treated his original lots as a single lot by the manner in which
he had subdivided them several times in the 1970s, and by the manner in
which he had attempted in 1991 to convey the remaining land that he had
retained. On appeal, the petitioner and amici curiae raise several arguments
challenging the trial court’s ruling, including arguments that the trial court
disregarded evidence that the petitioner did not intend to merge the lots, that
there is no instrument describing the petitioner’s remaining land as a single
lot, and that the town lacked authority in 1991 to challenge the manner in
which he had attempted to convey his remaining land.

As the appealing party, the petitioner 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 well-reasoned order, the petitioner’s challenges to it,
the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
petitioner has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk