Michael J. Walsh v. Sydney H. Walsh & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0201, Michael J. Walsh v. Sydney H.
Walsh & a., the court on September 13, 2019, 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 plaintiff, Michael J. Walsh, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Ruoff, J.) dismissing his complaint against the defendants, Sydney H. Walsh and
Agape Irrevocable Trust, for failure to state a claim and denying his motion to
amend the complaint to include a count under RSA chapter 547-C (2007 &
Supp. 2018), providing for the partition of real property. He contends that the
trial court erred by not finding that: (1) the trust, which the circuit court had
earlier voided and under which he was not a beneficiary, created a contract
between him and Sydney Walsh; (2) being appointed a co-trustee of the trust
created a contract with Sydney Walsh and an ownership interest in the real
property that formed the trust’s corpus; (3) Sydney Walsh’s text messages to him
created a contract; (4) the documents he attached to his complaint set out the
terms of a contract with Sydney Walsh; (5) Sydney Walsh’s successful efforts to
have him removed as co-trustee and to have the trust voided were a breach of
contract and constituted unjust enrichment; (6) allotting half the “trust
certificates” to his children showed that he owned half the trust corpus; (7) his
contributions to expenditures on the real property while he lived there showed
Sydney Walsh’s implicit agreement to give him an ownership interest in property;
and (8) he was entitled to an equitable remedy because he contributed to the
expenditures on the real property while he was living there. He further contends
that the trial court erred by: (1) not making all reasonable inferences in his favor;
and (2) concluding that only those with “a present undivided legal or equitable
interest . . . in real . . . property,” RSA 547-C:1 (2007), which it found he lacked,
could petition for partition under RSA chapter 547-C.

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 order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2