2020-0078 Nonprecedential Processed

In re Estate of Frederick J. Caldwell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Filed August 14, 2020

Opinion text

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0078, In re Estate of Frederick J.
Caldwell, the court on August 14, 2020, issued the following
order:

Having considered parties’ briefs and the limited record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 18(1). The appellant, Steven Caldwell, appeals an order of the Circuit
Court (Maloney, J.) granting the motion filed by the administrator of his
father’s estate to distribute the estate equally to the appellant and his sister
pursuant to the statute governing intestate succession, RSA 561:1, II (2019).
We affirm.

Our standard of review of a circuit court probate division decision is
governed by statute: “The findings of fact of the judge of probate are final
unless they are so plainly erroneous that such findings could not be reasonably
made.” RSA 567-A:4 (2019). Accordingly, “we will not disturb the probate
division’s decree unless it is unsupported by the evidence or plainly erroneous
as a matter of law.” Hodges v. Johnson, 170 N.H. 470, 480 (2017).

RSA 561:1, II(a) provides that when a decedent dies intestate and has no
surviving spouse, the entire estate passes to the decedent’s “issue . . . equally if
they are all of the same degree of kinship to the decedent.” Here, there is no
dispute that the appellant and his sister are the decedent’s surviving issue and
that they have the same degree of kinship to the decedent.

On appeal, however, the appellant argues that the entire estate should be
distributed to him because he is in need and his sister is not. He cites no
authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none. As the appealing
party, the appellant 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 appellant’s challenges to it, 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