John D. Tucker, Jr. v. Jean A. Tucker & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0412, John D. Tucker, Jr. v. Jean A.
Tucker & a., the court on January 13, 2017, 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, John D. Tucker, Jr., appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Temple, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Jean A.
Tucker and David Labrecque. He challenges the trial court’s findings that: (1)
RSA 508:5 (2010), which establishes a 20-year statute of limitations for “[a]ctions
of debt upon judgments,” governs his 2015 action to recover on a stipulation
incorporated into his parents’ 1972 divorce decree, see In the Matter of Aube &
Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 464 (2009) (holding that final divorce decree is judgment
subject to post-judgment interest); (2) even if his action were governed by RSA
508:4 (2010), which establishes a three-year statute of limitations for personal
actions, the plaintiff failed to carry his burden to demonstrate that the limitations
period should be tolled, see Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., 160 N.H. 708, 713
(2010) (stating plaintiff has burden of establishing that discovery rule applies),
because his affidavit did not include facts that explained or justified his failure to
learn of his interest in the divorce decree until 2014, see J.G.M.C.J. Corp. v.
C.L.A.S.S., Inc., 155 N.H. 452, 458 (2007) (stating mere denials or vague and
general allegations of expected proof are not sufficient to opposed motion for
summary judgment); and (3) his action was time-barred, although he was a
minor at the time of the divorce, was not a party to the divorce, and had never
owned the property in contention.

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