Woodrow Medina v. George Knight ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                      THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    SUPREME COURT
    In Case No. 2017-0489, Woodrow Medina v. George Knight,
    the court on April 16, 2018, issued the following order:
    Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
    that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
    The plaintiff, Woodrow Medina, appeals an order of the Circuit Court
    (DeVries, J.) dismissing his writ of replevin against the defendant, George Knight
    (buyer). We construe his brief to contend that the trial court erred by: (1) not
    finding that the bill of sale to the buyer from the used-car dealer where the
    plaintiff had consigned his 1989 motor vehicle for sale was invalid; (2) not
    inferring that the buyer had altered the bill of sale from the fact that he had
    registered the vehicle; (3) not finding that the buyer had committed fraud by
    registering the vehicle without a title, but see RSA 261:3, I(k) (Supp. 2017)
    (exempting vehicles manufactured before 2000, other than certain heavy trucks,
    from title requirement); (4) not finding that he owned the vehicle; (5) not finding
    that the vehicle was stolen; (6) considering that he was registered as a creditor in
    the dealer’s bankruptcy; (7) allowing the parties to make introductory statements
    before being sworn; (8) declining to accept “paperwork” offered by the buyer; (9)
    not sending him a copy of the buyer’s “rebuttal” prior to trial; and (10) not
    penalizing a town clerk for giving the buyer his name. We further construe his
    brief to contend that the audio recording of the hearing is inaccurate, but the
    written transcript is not.
    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. See 
    id.
    Affirmed.
    Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.
    Eileen Fox,
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2017-0489

Filed Date: 4/16/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/12/2024