Cited by

Co. v. Walker, 136 N.H. 594, 596 (1993), and a cause of action for breach of contract does not arise until the breach occurs.

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001); see also Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (noting that our rules of appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants).

Beane, 160 N.H. at 715 (declining to adopt the “continuing representation” rule for an accounting malpractice claim); Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 101 (2001) (declining to adopt the “continuing representation” rule for a breach of contract claim).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (noting that, when reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s action, we “assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts” alleged by the plaintiff).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (To prevail on appeal, the appellant must provide an adequate record and demonstrate reversible error.).

In a contract action, the statute of limitations begins to run when the breach occurs.

On appeal, the plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate error.

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (appellant has burden to demonstrate error and provide adequate record for review).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (on appeal, appellant has burden to show error); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (appellant must provide sufficient record to demonstrate error).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (on appeal, appellants have the burden to demonstrate error).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (noting that, when reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s action, we “assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts” alleged by the plaintiff).

We further agree with the trial court that, because the defendants’ breach of contract counterclaims raised the same issues that were the basis of the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a ruling on their request for a declaratory judgment.

The appealing party, in this case, the defendant, has the burden to demonstrate error.

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (appellant has burden to demonstrate error and to provide an adequate record for our review).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (appellant has burden to demonstrate error and to provide an adequate record for our review).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001); see RSA 508:4.

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (appellant has burden to show error).

It is the wife’s burden as the appealing party to provide an adequate record to demonstrate error.

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of providing an adequate record for our review, see Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001), and demonstrating reversible error, see Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).

To be timely, a contract claim must be brought within three years of when the breach occurs.

As the appealing parties, the Trainas have the burden of demonstrating reversible error.

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001); see RSA 508:4, I. Here, the plaintiff contends that the alleged breach occurred when she was “constructively] terminated] from employment on January 1, 2007.” However, the alleged breach — the plaintiffs constructive discharge — occurred when she submitted her December 21, 2006 resignation letter.

Under this rule, which other jurisdictions have established in the context of legal malpractice actions, “a client’s cause of action against his attorney does not accrue until the attorney ceases representing the client.” Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 101 (2001).

We will affirm a trial court’s grant of summary judgment if, considering the evidence and all inferences properly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant, our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (quotation, citation and ellipsis omitted).

The material facts are not in dispute; only their legal effect is in dispute.

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001) (quotation, citation and ellipsis omitted).

Coyle v. Battles, 147 N.H. 98, 100 (2001); see also RSA 508:4, I. The statute of limitations period may be tolled, however, by a party’s acknowledgement of a subsisting debt with an admission that the party is liable and willing to pay.

On the other hand, we review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo.

We will affirm a trial court’s grant of summary judgment if, considering the evidence and all inferences properly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo.