Allyn Jones v. Seabreeze Condominium Association

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0453, Allyn Jones v. Seabreeze
Condominium Association, the court on May 16, 2017, 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, Allyn Jones, appeals the order of the Superior Court
(Schulman, J.), following a bench trial and a view of the subject property,
denying his claims for damages and awarding nominal damages to the
defendant, Seabreeze Condominium Association, on its counterclaim. The
plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in: (1) finding that the defendant was
not required to reimburse him for the cost of replacing the sliding glass doors
to his oceanfront unit; (2) finding that the plaintiff failed to prove damages; and
(3) awarding the defendant nominal damages for the plaintiff’s alteration of the
exterior of the building.
The trial court found that, under the condominium documents, the
defendant has sole responsibility to repair, replace, and install the sliding glass
doors between the interior of the plaintiff’s unit and his outdoor deck, and that
its “refusal to honor these responsibilities from 2009 (or earlier) through
September 22, 2012 was likely a breach of the contractual obligations it owed
to [the plaintiff].” The court found, however, that the plaintiff “has not proven
any damages that flow from this breach” because, after the defendant notified
the plaintiff that it agreed to pay the full cost of purchasing and installing new
sliding glass doors, the plaintiff “either intentionally ignored the September 27,
2012 letter or, alternatively, recklessly refused to communicate with the
Association . . . in August, September and October, 2012.”
The court found that, “[w]ithout obtaining the Association’s assent, [the
plaintiff] (a) purchased sliding glass doors that were not recommended for use
in a coastal zone, (b) installed them in an improper manner that altered the
exterior of the building and (c) installed them in a manner that the Association
believes to have led to more leaks.” The plaintiff did not seek compensation for
any property damage to his unit caused by water leaks. He sought
reimbursement for the new doors in the amount of $7,685.24.
The court concluded that the plaintiff “is clearly not entitled to
reimbursement for the cost of purchasing the wrong sliders, installing them the
wrong way and altering the exterior of the building.” Although the plaintiff
asserts that the defendant’s property manager observed the installation of the
new doors and failed to order him to stop, the court found that “[b]y the time
the property manager arrived, the vinyl siding had already been cut and [the
manager] had no choice but to let the installation proceed.”
The court also found that the plaintiff breached his contractual
obligations to the defendant by altering the exterior of the building without
permission; however, the court concluded that the defendant failed to prove
that the alteration caused a diminution in the value of the condominium and
awarded nominal damages of one dollar.
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 well-reasoned 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.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2