Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ana Shevin Cabacoff & a.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ana Shevin Cabacoff & a., No. 2017-0707 (N.H. June 7, 2018).
The holding in the court’s own words
v. Ana Shevin Cabacoff & a., the court on June 7, 2018, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s 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
- State v. Blackmer 149 N.H. 47
- Vogel v. Vogel 137 N.H. 321
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2017-0707, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ana
Shevin Cabacoff & a., the court on June 7, 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, Ana S. Cabacoff and Robert S. Cabacoff, appeal orders by
the Superior Court (Temple, J.) denying their motion to “quash subpoena for
deposition and stay and abate further proceedings” and granting final judgment
to the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the Holders of the First
Franklin Loan Trust, by reforming the mortgage instrument.
We construe the defendants’ brief to contend that the trial court: (1) erred
by finding the federal rules of civil procedure inapplicable; (2) contravened state
and federal due process “because neither rational nor substantive analysis was
evident to parallel case dynamics” (emphasis omitted) and because it did not stay
the action before it while the defendants sought a writ of certiorari from the
United States Supreme Court; (3) committed plain error by “disregard[ing the]
indisputable clashing of state and federal issues enveloping this matter”; (4) acted
unreasonably because “[t]wo parallel cases [were] operating concurrently[,] one of
which [sought] definitive clarifications concerning aspects of a decision now
rendered in the [trial] court” and “no decision clarifying a nucleus of operative
facts has been concluded” in the federal matter; (5) “erred through failure to
review parallel case law merits under transactional claims of supplemental
jurisdiction” (bolding omitted); (6) exercised its discretion unsustainably by not
“hold[ing] off reformation issues until” the defendants’ federal petition for a writ of
certiorari was “disposed of”; and (7) “disregarded consideration for federal law”
and did not engage in “comity.”
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 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.
To the extent that the defendants’ brief raises additional arguments not
listed above, they 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.
Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2