Society Hill at Merrimack Condominium Association v. Michael Boulton & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0562, Society Hill at Merrimack
Condominium Association v. Michael Boulton & a., the court on
March 10, 2020, issued the following order:

Having considered the opening and reply briefs filed by the defendants,
Michael Boulton and Charles Clark (the Unit Owners), the brief filed by the
plaintiff, Society Hill at Merrimack Condominium Association (the Association),
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is
unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The Unit Owners appeal an
order of the Circuit Court (Ryan, J.) entering judgment for the Association on
the Association’s claim to recover certain sums due. We affirm.

On appeal, the Unit Owners argue that the evidence does not support the
trial court’s finding that they were fined for failing to notify the Association
“whether their dryer vent had been inspected or not as they were required to do
by the . . . Association[’]s rules.” In reviewing a trial court’s decision rendered
after a trial on the merits, we uphold its factual findings and rulings unless
they lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous. O’Malley v. Little, 170
N.H. 272, 275 (2017). We do not decide whether we would have ruled
differently than the trial court, but rather, whether a reasonable person could
have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same
evidence. Id. Thus, we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as
resolving conflicts in the evidence and determining the weight to be given
evidence. Id. Nevertheless, we review the trial court’s application of the law to
the facts de novo. Id.

Based upon our review of the record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that it supports the trial court’s findings that: (1) the Unit Owners failed to
notify the Association regarding whether their dryer vent had been inspected;
(2) such notification was required by the Association’s rules; and (3) the Unit
Owners were fined for their failure to notify. The property manager for the
condominium property testified that “[i]n 2016, Society Hill changed [its] rules
and regulations that dryer vents were required to be inspected every year, and
that inspection is supposed to be turned in to the property managers.” She
testified that condominium owners were notified of this rule change in
November 2015, and were informed that “the inspections needed to be
completed by April 30th of each year and turned in to the property
management.” (Emphasis added.) According to the property manager, the
Unit Owners did not submit any “certificates or inspections” to the property
management by April 30, 2016, as required. She testified that the Unit Owners
first notified the property management that their dryer vent had been inspected
“on or about June 2016, which was approximately two months after [the
notifications] were first due.” According to the Association’s rules, the
Association may fine each condominium owner who fails to comply with the
requirement to notify property management of the required inspection. The
property manager testified that her ledger showed that, for failing to submit the
monthly required notification that their dryer vent had been inspected, the Unit
Owners were fined in 2016 and 2017.

Boulton admitted that he “read that the dryer vents are [the
condominium unit owner’s] responsibility in the original condo documents.”
He further testified that, as of June 2016, he was aware that it was his
responsibility “to tell the condo association” that he had the dryer vent
inspected. Although Boulton testified that the Unit Owners provided
“notification that [they] got inspections,” it was for the trial court to resolve any
conflict between his testimony and the property manager’s testimony in the
first instance. See id.

To the extent that the Unit Owners argue that the evidence was
insufficient because the Association “failed to present any documentary
evidence” that they failed to comply with one of the Association’s rules, we
observe that they did not raise this argument until filing a motion to reconsider
in the trial court. In any event, we conclude that this argument goes to the
proper weight to be afforded the property manager’s testimony, and we defer to
the trial court’s judgment in determining the weight to be given evidence. Id.

Based upon the above evidence, the trial court reasonably found that: (1)
the Unit Owners failed to notify the Association regarding whether their dryer
vent had been inspected; (2) such notification was required by the Association’s
rules; and (3) the Unit Owners were fined for their failure to notify. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2