Keith Healey v. Jessica Leach & a. ( 2018 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2017-0276, Keith Healey v. Jessica Leach & a.,
the court on March 30, 2018, issued the following order:
The plaintiff’s motion to strike exhibits is granted in part and denied in
part. The following exhibits are stricken: (1) Better Business Bureau complaint;
(2) Angie’s List complaint; (3) Merrimack Police Department reports dated
9/21/16 and 10/5/16; and (4) bill of sale for birdbath, dated 6/6/91.
Otherwise, the motion is denied.
The defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s memorandum is denied.
The defendant’s “motion for the court not to accept [her] motion to strike the
[defendant’s] memorandum as a reply brief” is granted.
Having considered the briefs, the memorandum of law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
Defendant Jessica Leach appeals a small claim judgment entered by the
Circuit Court (Crocker, J.) in favor of the plaintiff, Keith Healey. We note that on
April 4, 2017, the trial court dismissed the case as to Peter Jennings and Curtis
Leach, and that the plaintiff has not appealed that order. Although the
defendant purports to raise 44 questions on appeal, she has developed only the
following arguments: (1) the trial court allegedly made “a plethora of erroneous
factual findings”; (2) the trial court did not identify which version of the contract
was valid; (3) the contract was void because the plaintiff waived a deposit; (4) the
plaintiff breached the contract before she did; (5) the plaintiff did not act in good
faith; (6) the plaintiff made an enforceable promise to provide free services in light
of her lack of satisfaction; and (7) the plaintiff should have written a new
contract.
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, the defendant’s challenges to it,
the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
defendant has not demonstrated reversible error. See id. Issues raised by the
defendant that she has not fully briefed are waived. See State v. Blackmer, 149
N.H. 47, 49 (2003).
Affirmed.
Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2