Richard M. Husband & a. v. Town of Hudson

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0371, Richard M. Husband & a. v. Town of
Hudson, the court on November 9, 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 plaintiffs, Richard M. Husband and Stephanie M. Husband, brought
nuisance and related claims against the defendant, the Town of Hudson,
asserting that the defendant was drawing an unreasonable amount of water
from its two wells near Darrah Pond in the Town of Litchfield in violation of
their littoral ownership rights as abutters of the pond. After nonsuiting their
nuisance claim without prejudice, they appeal orders of the Superior Court
(Temple, J.) dismissing and entering summary judgment on their related
claims, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that: (1) the New Hampshire
Public Utilities Commission authorized the defendant to draw water from the
wells for use by non-residents of Litchfield; (2) their claim for declaratory
judgment is duplicative of their nuisance claim; (3) their allegations of trespass
and invasion of privacy did not constitute a separate cause of action; and (4)
the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs 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 orders, the plaintiffs’ challenges to
them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that
the plaintiffs have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk