Theron DeBella v. Patricia Tantillo Fox

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0576, Theron DeBella v. Patricia Tantillo
Fox, the court on January 9, 2025, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, has considered the oral arguments of the parties, and has
determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2).
The plaintiff, Theron DeBella, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Leonard,
J.), issued following a hearing, entering judgment in favor of the defendant,
Patricia Tantillo Fox, in the plaintiff’s action seeking compensation for certain
work he performed on the defendant’s property during the course of their
relationship. The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by finding that he
was not entitled to compensation under a theory of unjust enrichment. We
affirm.

The trial court found that the plaintiff “completed the renovations on the
property gratuitously and without the expectation of being paid, because he
was in a relationship with [the defendant] and he intended to reside there when
[the defendant] retired.” Noting that unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy
that is available when an individual receives a benefit which would be
unconscionable to retain, see, e.g., Axenics, Inc. v. Turner Constr. Co., 164
N.H. 659, 669 (2013), the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim for unjust
enrichment failed because the defendant “cannot be said to have
unconscionably retained a benefit if [the plaintiff] performed his services
gratuitously, or without an expectation of ultimately being compensated.”

“The propriety of affording equitable relief in a particular case rests in the
sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Consequently, we
review a trial court’s equitable determination for an unsustainable exercise of
discretion.” Id. “To show an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the [plaintiff]
must demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly unreasonable or
untenable to the prejudice of [his] case.” Id. Moreover, as the trier of fact, the
trial court was “in the best position to measure the persuasiveness and
credibility of evidence and was not compelled to believe even uncontroverted
evidence.” Brooks v. Allen, 168 N.H. 707, 715 (2016) (quotation and brackets
omitted). Accordingly, “[w]e defer to the trial court’s resolution of conflicts in
the testimony, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given evidence.”
Id. (quotation omitted).

As the appealing party, the plaintiff 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 order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the relevant law,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not
demonstrated reversible error and affirm the court’s decision. See id.; Sup. Ct.
R. 25(8).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2