Gail E. DiGirolamo v. Michael J. Stewart

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0069, Gail E. DiGirolamo v. Michael J.
Stewart, the court on August 15, 2017, issued the following
order:

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the commissioner is denied.

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 defendant, Michael J. Stewart, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Ignatius, J.) in a partition action brought by the plaintiff, Gail E. DiGirolamo, see
RSA chapter 547-C (2007 & Supp. 2016), authorizing the court-appointed
commissioner to take various actions to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding
personal property and requiring the parties to share equally the commissioner’s
legal fees and fees for an “impounded pod storage unit.”

We construe the defendant’s brief to argue that the trial court erred by: (1)
violating in various ways the rights of his mother (buyer) who purchased the real
property at issue from the parties; (2) ordering him to pay half of the cost of
towing and storing a storage pod rented by the plaintiff; (3) ordering him to pay
half the court-appointed commissioner’s legal fees incurred after the closing; (4)
not granting him a hearing; (5) allowing the plaintiff to remove her personal
property over his objection; and (6) authorizing the commissioner to resolve
issues relating to the plaintiff’s personal property when “the Court-appointed
Commissioner [ ] no longer has jurisdiction over this matter” and “[c]ourt
involvement and Commissioner involvement in this matter is finished by New
Hampshire law and should be ended.”

To the extent that the defendant asserts the buyer’s rights, her motion to
intervene in this action was denied by the trial court, and she did not appeal that
decision. See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 46(d). The defendant lacks standing to assert
the buyer’s rights on his own behalf. See State v. Actavis Pharma, Inc., 170 N.H.
___, ___ (decided June 30, 2017) (stating that we may raise standing issues sua
sponte and that, to have standing, party must show that his own rights have
been or will be directly affected).

To the extent that the defendant raises other issues, as the appealing party
he 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 defendant’s
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the defendant has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2