Sandra Patti v. 40 Lowell Road Condominium Association

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0304, Sandra Patti v. 40 Lowell Road
Condominium Association, the court on December 20, 2021,
issued the following order:

The plaintiff’s motion to order transcripts, filed after the defendant filed
its memorandum of law, is denied. See Sup. Ct. R. 15; see also In the Matter of
Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants
are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by
counsel).

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). The plaintiff, Sandra Patti, appeals an order of the
Circuit Court (Alfano, J.) entering judgment for the defendant, 40 Lowell Road
Condominium Association, in a small claims case. The plaintiff argues that the
trial court erred in finding that a $100 monthly fee increase was not solely for
replacing the roof. We affirm.

The plaintiff asserts that in 2013 certain unit owners properly petitioned
for a special meeting of the condominium association. According to the
plaintiff, the sole purpose of the meeting, as stated in the meeting notice, was
to address the replacement of the roof. During the meeting, the owners
approved a special assessment of $100 per month beginning in January 2014
to increase the association’s reserve account. The plaintiff asserts that the
assessment was solely to pay for the roof replacement, and that the association
wrongfully continued to collect the additional $100 in fees after September 11,
2018, when the replacement was completed. The plaintiff seeks return of $100
per month she paid from January 2019 to June 2019.

The defendant asserts that the meeting minutes do not support the
plaintiff’s assertion that the November 26, 2013 meeting was a “special”
meeting, that the plaintiff failed to provide the meeting notice as part of the
record at trial or on appeal, and that the additional assessment was for
common expenses.

The minutes of the November 26, 2013 meeting show that all unit
owners, including the plaintiff, voted in favor of a motion “to increase
condominium fees by $100.00 per unit per month starting in January 2014 to
fund the reserve account.” Although the plaintiff argues that the intent was to
use the additional funds only for the roof, the minutes do not compel such a
finding, and the January 9, 2014 meeting minutes show that no unit owners
objected to the vote accepting the November 26, 2013 meeting minutes. The
trial court, based upon the testimony of the association’s current president,
found that the additional $100 per month “was part of the monthly condo fee,
and not an assessment for the roof.” Because the plaintiff has not provided a
transcript of the hearing, we must assume that the evidence supported the trial
court’s finding. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997). Accordingly,
we conclude that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate reversible error. See
Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (To prevail on appeal, the appellant
must provide an adequate record and demonstrate reversible error.).

Because we have neither referred to, nor relied upon, the plaintiff’s
“Exhibit 1 Addendum,” filed after the defendant filed its memorandum of law,
the defendant’s motion to strike the document is moot. See In the Matter of
Preston and Preston, 147 N.H. 48, 52 (2001).

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2