Doris Nelkens v. Daniel Kurz & a.
Doris Nelkens v. Daniel Kurz & a., No. 2015-0571 (N.H. June 24, 2016).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0571, Doris Nelkens v. Daniel Kurz & a., the court on June 24, 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, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff 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. 2015-0571, Doris Nelkens v. Daniel Kurz & a.,
the court on June 24, 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.
The plaintiff, Doris Nelkens, appeals the order of the Superior Court
(Kissinger, J.), following a bench trial, finding that her transfer of $200,000 to
the defendants, Daniel Kurz and Bethany Porter, was a gift, not a loan, and
ruling that the defendants are not legally obligated to repay her. Daniel Kurz is
the plaintiff’s son, and Bethany Porter is his wife.
Although the plaintiff offered no written evidence that the transaction
was a loan, she argues that the parties’ oral agreement on an interest rate, and
the defendants’ regular payment of interest for fourteen months, prove that the
transaction was a loan. The trial court credited the defendants’ testimony that
the transaction was a gift, and that the payment of “interest” was intended to
allow the plaintiff to avoid gift tax liability.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff 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 plaintiff’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk