In re Petition for Constructive Trust - Estate of Lucien Couture

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0324, In re Petition for Constructive
Trust - Estate of Lucien Couture, the court on November 10,
2015, issued the following order:

The respondent’s motion to waive the requirement of grey covers on her
reply brief is granted. 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 respondent, Hellen Couture, appeals orders of the Circuit Court
(Gorman, J.) following our remand of this case in In re Estate of Couture, 166
N.H. 101, cert. denied sub nom. Couture v. Couture, 135 S. Ct. 411 (2014). We
construe her brief to argue that the trial court erred in numerous ways, including
by: (1) imposing a constructive trust when (a) “the trial court lacked jurisdiction
[over] the parties or the subject matter or . . . lacked the inherent power to make
or enter the particular order . . . when [she] and the decedent . . . were still validly
married at the time of his death”; (b) the respondent was the administrator of the
estate; (c) the complaint was forged; (d) the “evidence was fabricated”; and (e)
“[t]here is no real party to this case”; (2) failing “to award [her] attorney[’]s fees
plus cost plus punitive damage”; (3) failing to recognize that she had been a
victim of “conspiracy [by] attorneys, judge and clerk of the court [who] all
commit[ted] fraud upon the court”; (4) violating her due process rights by seizing
her assets; and (5) “allow[ing anyone] other than [a] spouse to testify as to any
matter which in the opinion of the Court violated . . . [the] marital confidence of”
her and the decedent.

As the appealing party, the respondent 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 orders, the respondent’s challenges to them, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
respondent has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk