Linda-Marie Nakamura v. Michael J. Gill & a.
Linda-Marie Nakamura v. Michael J. Gill & a., No. 2016-0476 (N.H. May 15, 2017).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0476, Linda-Marie Nakamura v. Michael J. Gill & a., the court on May 15, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned orders, the defendants’ challenges to them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the defendants have not demonstrated reversible error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0476, Linda-Marie Nakamura v. Michael J.
Gill & a., the court on May 15, 2017, issued the following order:
Having considered the brief, 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, Michael J. Gill and The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. (MSI),
appeal orders of the Superior Court (Howard, J.) defaulting MSI, granting the
plaintiff, Linda-Marie Nakamura, a final default judgment of $105,391.06, and
denying their motion to recuse the presiding trial judge. They contend that: (1)
the trial court erred by not vacating MSI’s default more than eight months after it
was issued because “[t]o assert that [they] simply ignored the trial court’s
decision over several months is ridiculous”; (2) the trial judge erred by not
recusing himself; and (3) the trial court committed plain error by allowing the
judge to determine whether to recuse himself because that procedure violates the
State and Federal Constitutions.
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 orders, the defendants’ challenges to
them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
defendants have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Lynn, J.; and Smukler, J., retired superior court
justice, specially assigned under RSA 490:3, concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk