Edward F. Hayes, Jr., Trustee of the Survivor's Trust A c/u The Hayes Family Trust dated January 20, 2000 v. James J. Connolly, Trustee of the Ann D. Connolly Living Trust, 2018-0025

Background

The Hayes Family Trust and the Connolly Trust each own half of a Lake Sunapee seasonal property that has been family-owned since 1953.
A 1992 family agreement provided a buyout procedure upon dissolution or death (selection of appraisers and binding valuation), but parties did not rely on it for decades and the trial court found it abandoned.
In 2015 the Hayes Trust sought to liquidate its interest because beneficiaries could no longer afford maintenance; negotiations with the Connolly family failed (Hayes wanted to sell; Connolly wanted to retain status quo).
Hayes petitioned for partition, asking either a sale to Michael Hayes at court-determined market value or a public sale at the highest obtainable price.
The trial court found physical partition infeasible, awarded Hayes’s interest to Connolly in exchange for half the property’s fair market value, and ordered valuation by a process modeled on the 1992 Agreement (each party picks an appraiser, with a third if needed).
Hayes appealed, challenging (1) use of the abandoned 1992 Agreement’s procedure, (2) ordering an appraisal-based private sale instead of auction or listing, (3) alleged penalty for seeking partition, and (4) exclusion of testimony about ready buyers.

Issues

Issue	Hayes’s Argument	Connolly’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court impermissibly enforced an abandoned 1992 contract by adopting its valuation procedure	Trial court improperly enforced an abandoned agreement; method was contract-specific relief	Court used a fair, equitable method similar to the family’s prior practice, not enforcement of the contract	Court affirmed: the order did not specifically enforce the contract but permissibly adopted a fair valuation method the parties had previously considered
Whether the court erred by ordering an appraisal-based private sale instead of a private auction or public listing	A private auction among family would maximize liquidation value and preserve sale within family	Forcing Connolly to pay a premium over fair market value to maximize Hayes’s return would be inequitable	Court affirmed: appraisal-based valuation was a sustainable equitable remedy; forcing a premium was unjustified
Whether the court impermissibly penalized Hayes for initiating partition	Statement about Hayes seeking to change the arrangement is punitive and penalizes plaintiff	Court merely characterized the parties’ positions and protected Connolly’s emotional interest	Court affirmed: remark was descriptive, not punitive; no improper penalty shown
Whether exclusion of Michael Hayes’s testimony about ready buyers was erroneous	Testimony relevant to existence of buyers who would pay a premium, supporting auction approach	Existence of such buyers was not disputed; testimony unnecessary and exclusion not prejudicial	Court affirmed: exclusion was within discretion and not clearly prejudicial

Key Cases Cited

DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100 (2005) (partition equity principles; courts consider special circumstances)
Brooks v. Allen, 168 N.H. 707 (2016) (trial court’s equitable partition orders reviewed for unsustainable exercise of discretion)
State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 (2001) (standard for unsustainable exercise of discretion)
Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329 (2008) (party asserting unsustainable exercise must show ruling unreasonable or untenable)
Ryan v. Perini Power Constructors, Inc., 126 N.H. 171 (1985) (appellate review limited; will not substitute judgment for trial court)
In the Matter of Heinrich & Heinrich, 164 N.H. 357 (2012) (courts should not reweigh equities on appeal)
In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698 (2008) (interpreting trial court orders is a question of law)
McLaughlin v. Fisher Eng’g, 150 N.H. 195 (2003) (admissibility rulings reviewed for unsustainable exercise of discretion)