Robert L. Benjamin v. Vatche Manoukian & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0465, Robert L. Benjamin v. Vatche
Manoukian & a., the court on March 24, 2017, issued the
following order:

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

The defendants, Vatche Manoukian and Linda Haytayan, appeal an order
of the Superior Court (Ignatius, J.) clarifying a previous order of the trial court
(McGuire, J.) directing the defendants each to make separate periodic payments
in the amount of $1,500.00 per month to the plaintiff, Robert L. Benjamin, “until
the debt is paid in full.” We construe their brief to argue that: (1) the successful
breach of contract action that the plaintiff brought against them for failing to
meet their obligations under a settlement agreement is the “same case” as that in
which the settlement agreement was executed and, therefore, the order on
periodic payments for the breach of contract judgment “merely mirrors” the
settlement agreement; (2) although the plaintiff moved for separate periodic
payments from each defendant, “[t]here is one case here, with one judgement [sic]
amount [due from] the Defendants jointly and severalty [sic]”; (3) the defendants
“each filed separate motions to reduce the periodic payment amount because
they were each responding to the separate motions that were filed by the
Plaintiff”; (4) the plaintiff’s attorney made unspecified “deceptive representation[s]
of truths and facts” to the trial court; (5) separate judgments were entered
against each defendant in the breach of contract action because defendant
Haytayan had filed for bankruptcy protection; (6) defendant Haytayan stipulated
to her obligation to pay $1,500.00 per month because “she did not want to be
held in contempt or incarcerated”; (7) our order in the prior appeal of the trial
court’s periodic payment order stated that “the evidence supports the court’s
finding that the defendants have the ability to pay the plaintiff $1,500 per
month;” and (8) the breach of contract action in which the defendants were each
ordered to make periodic payments has one docket number.

As the appealing parties, the defendants 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 order, the defendants’ challenges to it,
the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
defendants have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2