Joseph Monagle & a. v. Judith Taylor

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2025-0535, Joseph Monagle & a. v. Judith
Taylor, the court on September 30, 2026, 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(3). The defendant, Judith Taylor, appeals a final order issued by
the Superior Court (Bornstein, R., approved by Frizzell, J.), following an
evidentiary hearing and view of the relevant property, on remand from this
court’s decision in Monagle v. Taylor, No. 2023-0418 (non-precedential order),
2024 WL 4976669 (N.H. Dec. 4, 2024) (Monagle I). The defendant argues that
the trial court erred by: (1) determining that it had construed the relevant deed
in Monagle I, and allegedly failing to “explicate[]” its interpretation of the
deeded easement; (2) rejecting the defendant’s interpretation of the deeded
easement; (3) not finding that the plaintiffs’ use of the easement is
overburdening it; (4) finding that the defendant has unreasonably interfered
with the plaintiffs’ deeded easement; (5) allowing the plaintiffs to call a rebuttal
witness at the evidentiary hearing; and (6) allegedly failing to conduct proper
pretrial procedures on remand. We affirm.

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’s well-reasoned order on remand, the defendant’s
arguments, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that the defendant has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Donovan, Countway, Gould, and Will, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk