Santander Bank, N.A. v. Lockwood Technology Corporation & a.
Santander Bank, N.A. v. Lockwood Technology Corporation & a., No. 2015-0544 (N.H. May 31, 2016).
The holding in the court’s own words
v. Lockwood Technology Corporation & a., the court on May 31, 2016, 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, LTC’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that LTC has 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. 2015-0544, Santander Bank, N.A. v. Lockwood
Technology Corporation & a., the court on May 31, 2016, 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.
Defendant Lockwood Technology Corporation (LTC) appeals the order of
the Superior Court (Mangones, J.), following a bench trial, concluding that
defendant Lockwood Worldwide, Inc. (LWW) established the superior right to
funds interpleaded by the plaintiff, Sovereign Bank, N.A., now known as
Santander Bank, N.A. By agreement of the parties and order of the court, the
plaintiff was dismissed from the case.
LTC argues that the court erred in ordering the funds to be disbursed to
LWW because: (1) the funds were derived from checks payable to “Lockwood
Technology” or “Lockwood Technology Corporation” pursuant to contracts
between LTC and third parties and should have been disbursed to LTC under
the rules of “equitable tracing”; and (2) LWW should not be rewarded for its
allegedly fraudulent misuse of LTC’s name.
The financial officer for LWW testified that he received permission from
his father, who was then the president of LTC, to use LTC’s name on certain
contracts that would be performed by LWW. The managing director of LTC’s
new owner testified that LWW lacked proper authorization to use LTC’s name.
The trial court found that LWW established the superior right to the funds
because LWW, not LTC, performed the work and incurred the expenses
required under the contracts.
As the appealing party, LTC 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, LTC’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and
the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that LTC has not demonstrated
reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk