Michael Stringer & a. v. People's United Bank, N.A.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0643, Michael Stringer & a. v. People's
United Bank, N.A., the court on August 16, 2017, issued the
following order:

The plaintiffs’ request in their reply memorandum of law that we strike the
defendant’s brief is denied.

Having considered the briefs, the reply 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 plaintiffs, Michael Stringer and Barbara Stringer (wife), appeal an
order of the Superior Court (Temple, J.) declining to permanently enjoin
foreclosure by the defendant, People’s United Bank, N.A. (bank). We construe
their briefs to contend that the trial court erred by: (1) finding that the bank’s
foreclosure notice met the requirements of RSA 479:25 (Supp. 2016); (2) finding
that the wife was a mortgagor when she did not own the real estate, but executed
the mortgage in order to waive her homestead interest, see RSA 480:5-a (2013);
(3) finding that the bank had the right to foreclose when neither party had asked
the trial court to determine, and the trial court had not determined, the balance
owed under the mortgage; (4) allegedly misidentifying the main issue; (5) not
finding that the bank failed to consider “the proposed settlement plan as an offer
in compromise,” allegedly “contrary to the [Small Business Administration’s]
existing protocols and standard operating procedures”; (6) finding that the bank
“has not acted unreasonably or otherwise breached the duty of good faith and
fair dealing”; and (7) finding that the plaintiffs had not “demonstrated the right to
permanent injunctive relief.”

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

Any remaining issues raised by the plaintiffs in their briefs either are not
sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or
otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321,
322 (1993).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2