John Rymes v. Blue Mountain Forest Association d/b/a Corbin Park & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0681, John Rymes v. Blue Mountain
Forest Association d/b/a Corbin Park & a., the court on July 15,
2024, issued the following order:

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 plaintiff, John Rymes, appeals the order of the Superior
Court (Smith, J.) dismissing his petition for injunctive relief against the
defendants, Blue Mountain Forest Association and Peter Crowell. He argues
that the trial court erred in denying his request for injunctive relief because he
had “at minimum” an equitable interest in the association as an “approved
applicant” or “approved buyer,” separate from his contract claims, and because
he alleged facts reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit
recovery. We affirm.

“The propriety of affording equitable relief rests in the sound discretion of
the trial court to be exercised according to the circumstances and exigencies of
the case.” MacDonald v. Jacobs, 171 N.H. 668, 679 (2019) (quotation omitted).
“We will uphold the decision of the trial court with regard to the issuance of an
injunction absent an error of law, unsustainable exercise of discretion, or
clearly erroneous findings of fact.” DuPont v. Nashua Police, Dep’t, 167 N.H.
429, 434 (2015) (brackets and quotation omitted).

The plaintiff alleged that he attained the status of an “approved
applicant” for membership in the association’s hunting club and an “approved
buyer” of membership certificates when the association stopped moving
forward with his membership application. He sought equitable relief from the
trial court requiring the defendants to return him to the list of “approved
applicants” or “approved buyers,” so that he could become a club member.
However, even assuming the truth of the allegations in the plaintiff’s petition,
see Barufaldi v. City of Dover, 175 N.H. 424, 427 (2022), returning to the
status of “approved applicant” or “approved buyer” would not, by itself, entitle
the plaintiff to membership. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the
plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he had a sufficient legal or
equitable interest that would allow for recovery. See id.

The plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to “consider the factual
circumstances of the case prior to making its determination as to whether
injunctive relief was warranted,” citing City of Keene v. Cleaveland, 167 N.H.
731, 742 (2015). However, the trial court considered that the plaintiff also
failed to state claims for breach of contract or specific performance, and the
plaintiff articulated no other legal or equitable theory entitling him to relief. We
conclude that the record supports these findings. Accordingly, we conclude
that the plaintiff has failed to show that the trial court erred in dismissing his
claim for injunctive relief. See DuPont, 167 N.H. at 434.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2