THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0580, Raymond E. Ladebush & a. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation & a., 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 plaintiffs, Raymond E. Ladebush and Karen A. Ladebush, appeal orders of the Superior Court (Houran and Brown, JJ.) dismissing some of their claims and, on the remaining claims, entering summary judgment for the defendants, HSBC Mortgage Corporation, Beneficial New Hampshire, Inc., s/b/m to Beneficial Mortgage Co. of New Hampshire, and HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., relating to a foreclosure on the plaintiffs’ property.

The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in: (1) ruling that the defendants obtained the right to enforce their predecessor’s contract as a result of a merger; (2) finding that the parties’ loan agreement was assignable; (3) ruling that the defendants could enforce the loan agreement; (4) finding that the answers of HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., to the plaintiffs’ allegations had the effect of a denial; (5) dismissing the claims against HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., despite its alleged admissions; and (6) denying the plaintiffs’ motions for contempt.

As the appealing parties, the plaintiffs 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 orders, the plaintiffs’ challenges to them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox, Clerk