Clay King v. Brandon Brooks, DBA New England Dieselz

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0551, Clay King v. Brandon Brooks, DBA
New England Dieselz, the court on December 24, 2024, issued
the following order:

The defendant’s requests to reject the plaintiff’s brief and/or
memorandum, and for an award of attorney’s fees, are denied. The court has
reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal and has
determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The
defendant, Brandon Brooks, DBA New England Dieselz, appeals an order of the
Circuit Court (McIntyre, J.) entering judgment for the plaintiff, Clay King, in a
small claims action brought to recover the purchase price, plus related costs, of
a used vehicle the defendant sold to the plaintiff. We affirm.

The trial court found the following facts. The plaintiff purchased a van
from the defendant. The trial court found that the plaintiff “intended to
purchase a working vehicle that would pass inspection and be suitable as a
travel van,” that this fact was “known to the Defendant,” and that the
defendant had “assured him that the van was in good condition and suitable
for his purpose.”

The plaintiff test drove the van, signed the bill of sale, and took
possession of the van. Thereafter, the plaintiff discovered that the van was
leaking gas and transmission fluid, and that the van’s frame was completely
rusted through in two places. The plaintiff testified that the van could not pass
inspection and reported that it was unsafe to drive. When the plaintiff
contacted the defendant, the defendant claimed the problems were fixable, but
at the plaintiff’s expense.

The trial court conducted a hearing on the merits. The court credited the
plaintiff’s testimony, concluded that the plaintiff met his burden of proof, and
ordered the defendant to refund the purchase price. The defendant filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.

When reviewing a trial court’s decision rendered after a trial on the
merits, we will uphold the trial court’s factual findings and rulings unless they
lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous. Gaucher v. Waterhouse, 175
N.H. 291, 295 (2022). We review the trial court’s application of the law to the
facts de novo. Id. at 296.
 The defendant argues that the trial court relied on hearsay evidence in
reaching its findings. Although the technical rules of evidence do not apply in
small claims proceedings, see RSA 503:7 (2010) (the court may admit any
evidence that it “deems material and proper”), here the trial court sustained
certain objections based on hearsay. The defendant contends that the trial
court nevertheless relied upon the objected-to hearsay. After reviewing the
hearing transcript, however, we conclude that the trial court did not rely on
any evidence that it did not admit.

We assume that the trial court made all subsidiary findings necessary to
support its decision, and review the record to see whether it supports any
necessary assumed findings. Nordic Inn Condo. Owners’ Assoc. v. Ventullo, 151 N.H. 571, 586 (2004). Small claims actions are intended to be “simple,
speedy, and informal.” RSA 503:2 (2010). In entering judgment for the
plaintiff, the trial court expressly found his testimony credible. We defer to the
trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony,
measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given
to the evidence. Gaucher, 175 N.H. at 296.

As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court order, the defendant’s preserved challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
defendant has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

MACDONALD, C.J., and BASSETT, DONOVAN, and COUNTWAY, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2