Brian J. Goodman v. Wachovia Mortgage ( 2016 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0415, Brian J. Goodman v. Wachovia
Mortgage, the court on June 14, 2016, 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, Brian J. Goodman (owner), appeals an order of the Superior
Court (Smukler, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., s/b/m Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia
Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB (bank). The owner contends that
the trial court erred by: (1) finding that he defaulted on his mortgage loan to the
bank; (2) not finding that the bank was estopped from foreclosing upon his
property because it refused to accept his payments after he “was running late to
get a check to” the bank’s attorney’s office, as ordered by the trial court, and
“tried to call the bank directly to make the payment”; (3) finding that the bank
held the original note and mortgage; (4) finding that the bank “became the holder
of the mortgage and note by succession when World Savings Bank merged with
it”; (5) not finding that the bank breached an oral modification to the mortgage,
which the mortgage prohibited; (6) denying his motions to compel the attendance
and testimony of two affiants whose affidavits the bank presented to the trial
court; (7) relying upon those affidavits; and (8) concluding that there were no
genuine issues of material fact regarding whether he had defaulted, the bank had
a loan in his name, the bank held the original note, and the note had passed to it
by operation of law. Any remaining issues raised by the plaintiff are not
sufficiently developed, see State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003), or
otherwise do not warrant further discussion, see Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321,
322 (1993).
As the appealing party, the owner 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 owner’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the owner
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk