Mason Horse & Trail v. Amy Bergeron & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0113, Mason Horse & Trail v. Amy
Bergeron & a., the court on February 3, 2017, 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 plaintiff, Mason Horse & Trail, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Crocker, J.) denying its request for a writ of replevin. See RSA ch. 536-A
(2007). The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that it
failed to prove its right to recover from the defendants, Amy Bergeron and
Robert Bergeron, possession of a trailer that had been attached to the plaintiff’s
hay elevator.

The plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by ruling, after the
show cause hearing, see RSA 536-A:5, that it could meet its burden of proof to
show its ownership of the trailer with evidence that it compensated the
defendants “for the goods and materials used in fabricating the trailer base,”
and then finding, after the hearing on the merits, that the plaintiff failed to
meet its burden, despite evidence that it paid for the materials used to make
the trailer.

At the outset, we note that the plaintiff asserts that it raised this issue in
its motion for reconsideration; however, the record includes a motion for
reconsideration only of the court’s order after the show cause hearing, and not
its order on the merits. Assuming, without deciding, that the plaintiff
preserved this issue for review, but see N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002), we conclude that the record supports the trial
court’s final order.

Separating the plaintiff’s $830 payment to defendant Amy Bergeron for
the conveyor apparatus, and its $32.76 payment to another member of the
plaintiff’s club for the trailer’s ball, hitch, and pin, the evidence showed that
the plaintiff paid defendant Robert Bergeron only $50 for metal used to make
the trailer frame. There was no evidence that the plaintiff reimbursed
Mr. Bergeron for the “Volkswagen front end” that he testified he purchased for
$75 to build the trailer. 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). Based upon this record, we
conclude that the trial court reasonably could have found that the plaintiff
failed to meet its burden to show that it paid the defendants “for the goods and
materials used in fabricating the trailer base.”

The plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in finding that it did
not purchase the trailer and conveyor “as a single unit.” The plaintiff supports
its argument with evidence that the parties, for years, referred to the trailer
and conveyor as one unit, and argues that the fact that the conveyor was
bolted, not welded, to the trailer carries little weight. The plaintiff also
challenges the weight given to the signed statement of eight former members of
the plaintiff’s club stating that the plaintiff purchased the conveyor but not the
trailer. 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 to the evidence. McCabe v. Arcidy, 138 N.H. 20, 24
(1993). Based upon this record, we conclude that the trial court reasonably
could have found that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden to show that it
purchased the trailer and conveyor as a single unit.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2