James Nixon v. Brian Beauvais & a.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

James Nixon v. Brian Beauvais & a.

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case Nos. 2015-0633 and 2016-0061, James Nixon v. Brian Beauvais & a., the court on July 12, 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, Brian Beauvais d/b/a Northeast Auto Salon, appeals orders of the Circuit Court (Quigley, J.) entering a judgment for the plaintiff, James Nixon, in the amount of $3,159.00, plus court costs and statutory interest, and denying the defendant’s counterclaim and motion to vacate the judgment due to alleged fraud.

On August 4, 2015, the parties appeared in the trial court for a hearing on the merits. Based upon the parties’ testimony and the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court found that the defendant failed to properly apply a “high-end vinyl wrap” on the plaintiff’s Porsche vehicle. The court awarded the plaintiff damages of $3,159.00, plus court costs and statutory interest. In his motion to vacate the judgment, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff committed fraud by testifying that he was embarrassed to drive the vehicle, when the evidence showed that he appeared at a car show with the vehicle prior to the hearing.

On appeal, the defendant raises numerous challenges to the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony and the weight to be given his evidence. We defer to a trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence. In the Matter of Aube & Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 465 (2009). We will affirm the trial court’s findings if a reasonable person could have made such findings based upon the evidence presented. Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that a reasonable person could have found as the trial court did based upon the evidence presented. See id.

The defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk

Reference

Status
Unpublished