Robert Wilson v. Anne Romney

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2024-0069, Robert Wilson v. Anne Romney, the
court on October 11, 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, Robert Wilson, appeals an order of the Superior
Court (Ruoff, J.) dismissing his complaint against the defendant, Anne Romney
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiff
argues that, in dismissing the complaint, the trial court erred by failing to
construe the pleadings in a light most favorable to him, by crediting the
allegations in the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and by not allowing discovery
and a trial by jury. He further argues that the trial court erred by denying his
motion to compel answers to interrogatories, and by denying his request to
waive court fees. We affirm.

In reviewing the trial court’s dismissal order, we consider whether the
allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a
construction that would permit recovery. See Szewczyk v. Continental Paving, 176 N.H. 148, 151 (2023). We assume the truth of the well-pleaded factual
allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings and construe all reasonable inferences
from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. We do not,
however, assume the truth of statements in the plaintiff’s pleadings that are
conclusions of law. See id.; ERG, Inc. v. Barnes, 137 N.H. 186, 190 (1993)
(“The court will not, however, assume the truth or accuracy of any allegations
which are not well-pleaded, including the statement of conclusions of fact and
principles of law.”). We will uphold the trial court’s decision if the facts pleaded
do not constitute a basis for relief. See Szewczyk, 176 N.H. at 151.

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 arguments, the relevant law, and
the record submitted on appeal, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the
well-pleaded facts in his complaint, together with all reasonable inferences
from those facts, constitute a basis for relief. See id.; Szewczyk, 176 N.H. at
151. Accordingly, we uphold the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint. The
plaintiff’s remaining arguments either are insufficiently developed or were
raised for the first time in his reply brief and, thus, are waived. See State v.
Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003); Panas v. Harakis & K-Mart Corp., 129 N.H.
591, 617-18 (1987).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2