Santander Bank, N.A. v. Lockwood Technology Corporation & a. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                    THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    SUPREME COURT
    In Case No. 2015-0544, Santander Bank, N.A. v. Lockwood
    Technology Corporation & a., the court on May 31, 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.
    Defendant Lockwood Technology Corporation (LTC) appeals the order of
    the Superior Court (Mangones, J.), following a bench trial, concluding that
    defendant Lockwood Worldwide, Inc. (LWW) established the superior right to
    funds interpleaded by the plaintiff, Sovereign Bank, N.A., now known as
    Santander Bank, N.A. By agreement of the parties and order of the court, the
    plaintiff was dismissed from the case.
    LTC argues that the court erred in ordering the funds to be disbursed to
    LWW because: (1) the funds were derived from checks payable to “Lockwood
    Technology” or “Lockwood Technology Corporation” pursuant to contracts
    between LTC and third parties and should have been disbursed to LTC under
    the rules of “equitable tracing”; and (2) LWW should not be rewarded for its
    allegedly fraudulent misuse of LTC’s name.
    The financial officer for LWW testified that he received permission from
    his father, who was then the president of LTC, to use LTC’s name on certain
    contracts that would be performed by LWW. The managing director of LTC’s
    new owner testified that LWW lacked proper authorization to use LTC’s name.
    The trial court found that LWW established the superior right to the funds
    because LWW, not LTC, performed the work and incurred the expenses
    required under the contracts.
    As the appealing party, LTC 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, LTC’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and
    the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that LTC has not demonstrated
    reversible error. See 
    id.
    Affirmed.
    Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
    Eileen Fox,
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-0544

Filed Date: 5/31/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/12/2024