Edward Arsenault & a. v. Town of Raymond
Edward Arsenault & a. v. Town of Raymond, No. 2014-0829 (N.H. Aug. 7, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0829, Edward Arsenault & a. v. Town of Raymond, the court on August 7, 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 petitioners’ challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioners 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. 2014-0829, Edward Arsenault & a. v. Town of
Raymond, the court on August 7, 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, Edward Arsenault and Donna Arsenault, appeal an order
of the Superior Court (Delker, J.) dismissing their petition against the
respondent, the Town of Raymond, in which they sought a writ of mandamus
compelling the town to enforce a settlement agreement that it had entered into
with the owners of property abutting their lot. The trial court ruled that the
petitioners had pleaded no facts establishing they were third-party beneficiaries
of the agreement and, thus, that they lacked standing to seek its enforcement.
The trial court also construed the petition as seeking to compel the town to
enforce its zoning ordinances, and reasoned that, because the enforcement of
ordinances is discretionary, and because the petitioners had alleged no facts
establishing that the town had acted arbitrarily or in bad faith in not enforcing
the ordinances, the petitioners were not entitled to mandamus relief. On appeal,
the petitioners argue that the trial court erred by: (1) finding that they were not
third-party beneficiaries of the settlement agreement; (2) construing their petition
as a request to compel the town to enforce its zoning ordinances; (3) depriving
them of a remedy; and (4) not finding that the town acted in an arbitrary and
unreasonable manner in failing to enforce the agreement.
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 trial court’s well-reasoned order, the petitioners’ challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
petitioners have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk