Judith Tompson v. Randolph Bank
Judith Tompson v. Randolph Bank, No. 2017-0732 (N.H. Oct. 2, 2018).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0732, Judith Tompson v. Randolph Bank, the court on October 2, 2018, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and limited record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned orders, the plaintiff’s challenges to them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff 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. 2017-0732, Judith Tompson v. Randolph Bank,
the court on October 2, 2018, issued the following order:
Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and limited record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The plaintiff, Judith Tompson, appeals the order of the Superior Court
(Anderson, J.), following a foreclosure sale of her property, entering summary
judgment for the defendant, Randolph Bank, and the orders denying her
subsequently filed motions, mainly for the reasons stated in its summary
judgment order. The plaintiff raises numerous issues on appeal.
The trial court ruled that the defendant was entitled to summary
judgment on the plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of: (1) the Consumer
Protection Act, RSA chapter 358-A; (2) the Unfair Collection Practices Act, RSA
chapter 358-C; and (3) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1692-1695. The court further ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to a
homestead exemption, any recovery of accrued equity in the property, or
compensation for improvements to the property. In addition, the court ruled
that the defendant did not obtain an unreasonably low price for the property at
the foreclosure sale.
As the appealing party, the plaintiff 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 well-reasoned orders, the plaintiff’s challenges to
them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that
the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
The defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.
Affirmed.
Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk