Peter D. Harback & a. v. Neil Manning & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0645, Peter D. Harback & a. v. Neil
Manning & a., the court on September 17, 2018, 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 defendants, Neil Manning and Janet Manning, appeal an order of the
Superior Court (Kissinger, J.) in a quiet title action brought by the plaintiffs,
Peter Harback and Roberta Harback, involving ownership of waterfront
property and the existence and scope of certain easement rights. The
defendants argue that the trial court misapplied the principles of deed
interpretation, ignored relevant extrinsic evidence, and relied upon immaterial
and irrelevant evidence in concluding that they own no waterfront, have no
right of access to the waterfront, and do not have a right of way to travel across
the plaintiff’s property.

“In an action to quiet title, the burden is on each party to prove good title
as against all other parties whose rights may be affected by the court’s decree.”
Crowley v. Town of Loudon, 162 N.H. 768, 771 (2011). “We will uphold the
trial court’s determination unless it is erroneous as a matter of law or
unsupported by the evidence.” Id. The trial court in this case, following a view
of the properties and a seven-day trial, concluded in a 39-page decision that
the plaintiffs proved that they own the entire disputed waterfront area and
that, although the defendants have a right of way to park on a strip of the
plaintiffs’ property, they do not have a right of way to travel across the
plaintiffs’ property. The trial court found the plaintiffs’ surveyor to be more
credible than the defendants’ surveyor regarding the location of disputed
boundary lines. We defer to the trial court on such issues as resolving conflicts
in testimony and measuring the credibility of witnesses, including expert
witnesses. Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

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 thoughtful and 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.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2