Town of Carroll v. William Rines

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0555, Town of Carroll v. William Rines,
the court on April 29, 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 defendant, William Rines, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Vaughan, J.), on remand, conditionally imposing civil penalties upon him,
pursuant to RSA 676:17, I (Supp. 2015), and ordering him to pay attorney’s fees
to the plaintiff, the Town of Carroll (town), see RSA 676:17, II (2008). He
contends that the trial court erred by: (1) awarding the town attorney’s fees; (2)
finding that, between December 30, 2009 and May 12, 2010, he unlawfully
removed stockpiled excavated materials from his property without a variance, in
violation of the town’s zoning ordinance; (3) imposing civil penalties upon him;
and (4) denying his request, made in his motion for reconsideration, for a hearing
on his damages, which the town represents he did not claim in this action, see
Morancy v. Morancy, 134 N.H. 493, 497-98 (1991) (reversing damages award on
basis that theory on which trial court grounded award had never been pleaded).
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 order, the defendant’s challenges to it, the relevant law,
and the limited record submitted upon appeal, see Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt.,
151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004), we conclude that the defendant has not demonstrated
reversible error. See Gallo, 166 N.H. at 740.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk