City of Berlin v. Loveland Lineage, LLC & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0545, City of Berlin v. Loveland Lineage,
LLC & a., the court on January 19, 2021, issued the following
order:

Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct.
R. 18(1). Defendant George Stanley appeals orders of the Superior Court
(Bornstein, J.) affirming orders of the Circuit Court (Subers, J.) that authorized
the City of Berlin to remediate hazardous conditions located on property owned
by Stanley and defendant Loveland Lineage, LLC, and awarded the City
attorneys’ fees and costs. We affirm.

The pertinent facts are as follows. In August 2018, pursuant to an
administrative inspection warrant issued by the circuit court, the City inspected
the defendants’ property and discovered numerous violations of state law and
local ordinances. In September 2018, given the “deplorable condition” of the
property, and the significant hazards posed by it to public health and safety, the
City issued a consolidated set of orders obligating the defendants to remediate
the violations and to submit a detailed plan for doing so. See, e.g., RSA 147:4,
:17 (2005); RSA 155-B:2, :3 (2014); RSA 676:17, :17-a (2016). In December
2018, after the defendants failed to submit or agree to an acceptable remediation
plan, the City filed its consolidated orders with the circuit court and moved to
enforce them. See RSA 155-B:5; RSA 676:17-a, VI. Following a hearing in
January 2019, at which the defendants failed to appear, the circuit court found
that the property “is in such a condition as it poses a substantial and serious
risk to the public, City Officials and emergency responders, and any residents of
the [p]roperty,” and granted the City’s motion, ordering the defendants to
“remediate and remove all public hazards and violations from the [p]roperty . . .
no later than February 15, 2019.” In March 2019, the City filed an Affidavit of
Non-Compliance, notifying the circuit court that the defendants had not yet
begun the remediation. Accordingly, in May 2019, the circuit court authorized
the City to conduct the remediation itself, and awarded the City attorneys’ fees
and costs. See RSA 155-B:9, :10; RSA 676:17-a, VIII, IX.

Stanley appealed to the superior court. See RSA 155-B:15; RSA 676:17-a,
X. The City filed a motion for summary affirmance, which, in August 2019, the
superior court granted. In its order, the superior court found that Stanley’s
appeal of the circuit court’s January 2019 order was untimely; therefore, it only
considered the merits of the circuit court’s May 2019 order. Although the
superior court found that Stanley had failed to preserve his appellate arguments,
it nonetheless reviewed the factual and procedural history of the case and ruled
that

the circuit court’s May 23, 2019 decision was not erroneous and was
supported by the evidence. As set forth in the circuit court’s
January 15, 2019 order, if the appellant failed to comply with the
remediation order, the City would be entitled to file an Affidavit of
Non-Compliance and petition the court to allow it to take the
property to remediate same. According to the only evidence before
the Court, the appellant failed to meet said obligations and,
therefore, the City petitioned the court for relief. The relief that the
circuit court granted was consistent with its January 15, 2019 order
and consistent with the applicable law. For these reasons, the Court
GRANTS the City’s Motion for Summary Affirmance. The appellant’s
appeal, therefore, is dismissed.

The superior court also granted the City’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in enforcing the action, approving, in a subsequent order, the specific
amounts requested by the City. Stanley’s motion for reconsideration was denied
in August 2019.

Stanley now appeals the superior court’s orders. However, his appellate
brief consists of a single, hand-written page that fails to develop any legal
argument, and amounts to “a mere laundry list of complaints regarding adverse
rulings by the trial court.” State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (quotation
omitted). Accordingly, the brief is insufficient to warrant judicial review. See id.
Moreover, as the appealing party, Stanley has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the superior court’s orders, Stanley’s challenges to them, the relevant
law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that he has not
demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2