Vanessa Vanderhoek v. Aylward Motors

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0716, Vanessa Vanderhoek v. Aylward
Motors, the court on August 24, 2016, issued the following
order:

Having considered the brief and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We
affirm.

The defendant, Aylward Motors, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Ashley, J.), following our remand in an earlier appeal, see Vanderhoek v.
Aylward Motors, No. 2014-0263 (N.H. March 17, 2015), awarding the plaintiff,
Vanessa Vanderhoek, $1,313.38 plus costs and interest on her small claim.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s testimony lacked credibility, that her
evidence of damages was unreliable, and that the court erred in awarding
damages for replacement tires.

The defendant first argues that the plaintiff’s testimony was inaccurate,
untruthful, and inconsistent. We defer to a trial court’s judgment on such
issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of
witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence. In the Matter of
Aube & Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 465 (2009). We will affirm the trial court’s
findings if a reasonable person could have made such findings based upon the
evidence presented. Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

The record shows that on August 6, 2013, the plaintiff paid $2,200 to
purchase a 1996 Dodge Ram 1500 pick-up truck on consignment from the
defendant, who was the consignee. On August 14, 2013, the defendant
performed a state inspection on the vehicle and found that it passed
inspection. In the prior appeal, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient
for the trial court to have found that the defendant misrepresented the
condition of the vehicle at the time of sale, but vacated the damages award and
remanded for a hearing on damages. See Vanderhoek, No. 2014-0263.

The trial court found, after a hearing on damages and a review of the
invoices, that the plaintiff paid Atkins Auto $658.18 to make certain repairs to
the vehicle in September 2013, and that the defendant should have noticed the
deficiencies when it inspected the vehicle on August 14, 2013. The defendant
asserts that the vehicle could not have been repaired in September 2013
because some of the plaintiff’s photographs showed snow in the background,
and it appeared that the repairs had not been completed when the photographs
were taken. The plaintiff testified that she took some of the photographs, that
her father-in-law took some of the others, and that she could not recall when
the photographs were taken. The trial court, as fact-finder, is not required to
explain away all inconsistencies in the evidence presented at trial. Barrows v.
Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 396-97 (1996) (brackets, citations, and quotations
omitted). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that a reasonable
person could have found as the trial court did. See Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H.
at 780.

The defendant next argues that the trial court erred in accepting the
plaintiff’s invoices as evidence of her damages, asserting that they were
unreliable, that they were prepared “after the fact,” and that they were
inconsistent with the plaintiff’s testimony. We defer to the trial court’s
determination as to the weight to be given evidence. In the Matter of Aube &
Aube, 158 N.H. at 465. The trial court noted in its order that some of the
invoices were duplicative; however, after a careful review, it found that the
plaintiff paid $318.83 for the services listed in the September 16, 2013 invoice
and $339.35 for the services listed in the September 19, 2013 invoice, in
addition to the $655.20 she paid Wal-Mart to install new tires. Based upon
our review of the record, we conclude that a reasonable person could have
found the plaintiff’s damages to be the amount found by the trial court. See
Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. at 780.

Finally, the defendant argues that the vehicle did not need new tires to
pass inspection, noting that tires were not listed on the invoices from Atkins
Auto as items needing replacement. A defense witness challenged the need for
new tires, testifying, “If the tires were really as bad as she says, she should
have replaced them right away.” The plaintiff testified at the prior hearing that
she had to replace the tires, and at the damages hearing, she introduced
receipts showing that she had new tires installed at Wal-Mart on October 22,
2013. Based upon this record, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that
the vehicle needed new tires to pass inspection. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2