Sanjeev Lath v. Scott Sample

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0217, Sanjeev Lath v. Scott Sample, the
court on September 15, 2016, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, 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, Sanjeev Lath, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Kent,
R., approved by Lyons, J.), following a bench trial, ruling in favor of the
defendant, Scott Sample, on his small claim. The plaintiff sought the return of
a $30 fee that he paid the defendant, the maintenance manager for a
condominium complex in which he owns a unit, to unlock his unit after
business hours. The evidence at trial established that: (1) at the time the
plaintiff paid the fee, the condominium association’s written policy governing
after-hours “lock outs” provided that “[t]here is a $30 charge payable
immediately to the person called out after hours” to unlock a unit; (2) the
longstanding practice was that the maintenance employee called after hours to
unlock a unit would keep the $30 charge as compensation; and (3) the board of
directors for the condominium association was aware of, and approved, this
practice. The trial court ruled: “The rules make it clear that the fee is due but
it is ambiguous as to who keeps the fee. Since the evidence demonstrates that
the Board sanctions the fee that ambiguity is resolved in favor of the
defendant.” According to the trial court, “The Plaintiff’s cause of action is
administrative with the Board or with the association to change the rule.”

On appeal, the plaintiff does not dispute that, under the policy, he was
required to pay the $30. Rather, he raises several arguments claiming that,
because the defendant is a salaried employee of the condominium association
who is entitled to a fixed sum of compensation under RSA 275:42, VI (Supp.
2015) and RSA 275:43-b (2010), it was unlawful for the defendant to retain the
$30. According to the plaintiff, the $30 should have been paid into the
condominium association’s “common expense fund.” We assume, without
deciding, that the plaintiff’s arguments are preserved.

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 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

2