Ralph V. Furino & a. v. Arthur Hoover, Esq. & a. ( 2016 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0509, Ralph V. Furino & a. v. Arthur
Hoover, Esq. & a., the court on May 26, 2016, issued the
following order:
Having considered the briefs, memoranda of law, and record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See
Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). Accordingly, respondent David Dupont’s motion to assign
the case to a 3JX panel is denied. We affirm.
The petitioners, Ralph Furino, Jr., Donna M. Furino, and Anthony
Furina, appeal the order of the Circuit Court (Weaver, J.), following a ten-day
bench trial, denying their requests for relief relating to the Estate of Ann Jane
Furina. They argue that the trial court erred by failing to: (1) rule that Anne
Jane Furina (settlor) revoked her January 7, 2011 and October 4, 2012 wills by
cancellation; (2) rule that the 2010 trust, the January 7, 2011 will, the January
7, 2011 amendment to the 2000 trust, and the October 4, 2012 will were
induced by undue influence; (3) rule that the settlor revoked the 2010 trust
and January 7, 2011 amendment to the 2000 trust either orally or by her
October 4, 2012 “revocation letter”; (4) find that the settlor intended to revoke
the 2010 trust and the January 7, 2011 amendment to the 2000 trust;
(5) reform the 2010 trust and January 7, 2011 amendment to the 2000 trust
based upon the settlor’s allegedly mistaken factual assumptions; and
(6) extend the discovery deadline and continue the trial by five months. They
further argue that the trial court improperly relied, in part, upon allegedly
irrelevant evidence in determining petitioner Ralph Furino’s credibility, and
that its decision was “improperly tainted” by comments from the New
Hampshire Director of Charitable Trusts.
As the appealing parties, the petitioners have 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 petitioners’
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the petitioners have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk