Raymond E. Ladebush & a. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0580, Raymond E. Ladebush & a. v. HSBC
Mortgage Corporation & a., the court on April 29, 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 plaintiffs, Raymond E. Ladebush and Karen A. Ladebush, appeal
orders of the Superior Court (Houran and Brown, JJ.) dismissing some of their
claims and, on the remaining claims, entering summary judgment for the
defendants, HSBC Mortgage Corporation, Beneficial New Hampshire, Inc.,
s/b/m to Beneficial Mortgage Co. of New Hampshire, and HSBC Mortgage
Services, Inc., relating to a foreclosure on the plaintiffs’ property.

The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in: (1) ruling that the
defendants obtained the right to enforce their predecessor’s contract as a result
of a merger; (2) finding that the parties’ loan agreement was assignable;
(3) ruling that the defendants could enforce the loan agreement; (4) finding that
the answers of HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., to the plaintiffs’ allegations had
the effect of a denial; (5) dismissing the claims against HSBC Mortgage
Services, Inc., despite its alleged admissions; and (6) denying the plaintiffs’
motions for contempt.

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, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk