THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0820, Dennis Glynn v. Elizabeth Lampron & a., the court on July 10, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the plaintiff’s brief and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The plaintiff, Dennis Glynn, appeals orders of the Circuit Court (McKenna, J.) denying his motion for periodic payments, see RSA 524:6-a (Supp. 2014), and providing that, at future periodic payment hearings, the appearance of either the plaintiff or his counsel shall be required. He argues that the trial court erred by: (1) concluding that he has the burden of proof at a periodic payment hearing; (2) requiring that he be present at future periodic payment hearings; and (3) ruling that, at future periodic payment hearings, it “may require the Plaintiff to demonstrate that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the Defendant-Judgment Debtor has property, income, or other assets that are not exempt from attachment, trustee process or execution, available to satisfy the judgment or apply to the periodic payment thereof,” see Dist. Div. R. 4.10(d) (at periodic payment hearing, plaintiff bears burden “to establish that the defendant has the ability to pay the judgment from non- exempt assets either in full or in installments”).

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 orders, the plaintiff’s challenges to them, 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, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk