Richard Theriault v. Robert A. Theriault
Richard Theriault v. Robert A. Theriault, No. 2017-0711 (N.H. Sept. 14, 2018).
The holding in the court’s own words
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 order, the petitioner’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has 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. 2017-0711, Richard Theriault v. Robert A.
Theriault, the court on September 14, 2018, issued the following
order:
The petitioner’s motion to file a second reply brief 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 petitioner, Richard Theriault, appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(Quigley, J.) ruling that he is not a beneficiary of the Theriault & Sons Realty
Trust (trust), executed by Edgar Theriault on May 10, 1973, in favor of the
respondent, Robert A. Theriault, the trustee of the trust, and the intervenors,
Michael Theriault and James Theriault, beneficiaries under the trust. He
contends that the trial court erred by finding that he is not a beneficiary and by
considering: (1) the schedule of beneficiaries, signed by Edgar in 1989, as
evidence of Edgar’s intent because, he asserts, it did not comply with the trust’s
requirements for an amendment; and (2) Edgar’s will, which excluded him as a
legatee.
As the appealing party, the petitioner 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 petitioner’s challenges to it, the relevant law,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk