Docstoc

appendix3

Document Sample
appendix3 Powered By Docstoc
					                                    STAIE OFNEWI{AMPSHIRE
 HILI,SBOROUGII,
               SS                                        SI]PERIORCOURT
 NORTIIERNDISTRICT                                       04-E42Sl

                                             EdwardJ. Burke

                          BunnytsSqrerette,,J"., *o-*    M. Burkq
                          lMarieI. Brnke anil BernardlneP. Donelson


                     AMENDMMIT TO PI,AINTIFF'S EMIBIT LIST

Theplaintiff intends
                   produce followingatlditional
                         rhe                  exhibits theTrial in xhismatterwhich
                                                      at
sha[ occuron ltrIednesday, 15,2@5:
                        June

1.     All Durable     of
                  Powers AttoroeyslCned MarieI. Burke.
                                      W
2,     All HealthCare     of
                     Powers Attorneysigned MarieI. Burke.
                                          by

3,     A1l fassmittallettersconveyiag
                                    mnformed     of     of
                                            copies Powers Attorney,wills, trust
       or .trustanendments.

4.     Marie I. Burke'scurrent andall prior wills.
                             will

5.    Marie I. Burke'sRevocable
                              Trust.

6,    All amendrnentsMarieL Burke'sRevocable
                   to                      Trust,

7.    AII checkiqg
                 account
                       statemetrts,                checks MaxieI. Eurke,
                                 registers cancelled
                                         and            of

8.    All summaries sflgcking
                   ef       accounts,             prepar€d Marie
                                    income expenses,
                                          and            o[
      I. Burke'sbehalf accountants.
                      for

9.    Copiesof all statenents stockbrokers,investment
                            from                             or    regarding
                                                     advisors others
      Marie I. Burke'sstooks,bonds anyandall otherinvestuents.
                                  or

10.   Copiesof all bankaccounts,
                               certificates deposit,
                                          of       stocks bonds anya[d
                                                        and    atrd
      all otherinvestrcots MarieI. Burke,
                          of

11.   Copiesof all of MarieI. Burke'siucome retums.
                                           tax
LZ.   Copiesof all of MarieI. Burke'sfinancial*"r;.

      Theplaintiff reserves right io update list of exhibits to andinclurlingthe
                          &e              this             up
timeof trial.



             vlr.lc€i{rA-wEt{.lEfis, JR-FTORNEyArrllrv-a4   aAy STREET- MA,{CHFTERNH06104   000039
                                               EdwardJ. Burke
                                               By his attopey,


Date:Iune E, 2005
                                               Vin&trdA. Il/enners, Esquire
                                                                  Ir.,
                                               84Bay Street
                                               Manchester, 031@
                                                           NH
                                               (603)669-3970



                                        CERTIFICATION

       I hereby certiff that ou 86 day of June,2005, a copy of the rvithin Amendmentto
Plai$ifrs Exhibit List \pa$mailedto James Normand, Esquire.ovide M. Lamontagne,
                                            A.
Bquire, Danielle L. Pacik, Esquiread Ruth ToIf            Esqrdre,  opposing sounsel.




                                                                                            000040
             vlt{cENTA"wE},tNERS, - A|TCRNEYAT
                                S,            tl$t- A4 BAy SrR€r-   [,|AN(}{ESIm, NH 6tO4
                                    STATEOFNEWHAIVIPS}IIRE
HIU^SBOROUGH,SS                                           SUPERIOR COURT
NORT]IERNDISTRICT                                         04-E-0251

                                        Eilwaril J. Burke
                                                v.
                          . BuouytsSuperette, Inc., ThomasM. Burke'
                            Marie I. Brrke andBernardineP. Ilonelson




The plaintiff iutendsprotlucethe following additionalexbibits at the Trial in this mafier which
shall occur on Wednesday,   June 15, 2@5:
                                                                                       '
1.     Copiesor origingls of all Wrlls oxecuted Marie I' Burke prior to Jaouary7 ' 1999
                                              by

2.                                     prepared ThomasM, Burke andgiven to Ruth Tolf
       A list of Marie I. Burke's assets       by
       Ansell, Esquire.

3.     A list of Marie L Burke's grandchildren nameaud birth dateprepared Thomas
                                             by                         by
       Burke and given to Ruth Tolf Amell' Esquire'

4.                        -NH;            and/or saleof real estate
                   relating to the purchase
       All documents                                               situateat: Rockland
       Avenue,Manchester,       Nortb Adamsaf,dwebster Streets,  Manchester,   NH; and
       WebsterStreet,Manchester'NH.

       The plaintiff reservesthe right to updatethis list of exhibitsup to ard including the
time of trial.

                                                         Respectfu submitted,
                                                                lly
                                                         EdwardJ. Burke
                                                         By his 4ttorneY,


    JuneL3,2W5
Date:
                                                                            Jr.,
                                                            cent A. IVenners, Esquire
                                                         84BayStreet
                                                         Manchester, 03104
                                                                     NH
                                                         (ffi3) 669-3970




                                                                                                       000M1
                VINCENTA.WEI{I.IERS,,JR..Itr'TORNEY'\T    TJS'- A4 BAV STREET- MANCTIESfER' NH @l(}4
                            TIIE STATEOF NEW HAMPSHTRE

HILLSBOROU6H,
           55                                                    SUPERIOR
                                                                        COURT
NORTHERN
       DISTRICT


                                 Dockel No. 0+E-023t

                                    Edward Burke
                                         J.

                                         V.

                                 Bunny's
                                       Superefte,
                                               Inc.
                                   Thomas Burke
                                         M.
                                    Marie Burke
                                         l.
                                 Bemardine Donelson
                                         P.


                     EXPARTE
                           MOTIONTO OUASHSUPBPOENA
                             PRODUCTION DOCUMENTS
                       SEEKING        OF
      NOWCOMERespondent,
                     Mariel. Burke, andthrough attorneys,
                                  by          her      Ansell&
Anderson,
       P.A., andAttorney
                       RuthTolfAnsell,
                                     and respectfully
                                                    moveto submit
                                                                the
following:

     1.       OnJune13, 2005, Petitioner
                            the       served
                                           uponRespondent/ l. Burke,
                                                       Marie       a
     subpoena   tecum,aftached Exhibit seeking compel production
            duces            as      A,      to     the        of
     documents 9:00a.m.onJune 2005;
            at              I5,   onehourpriorto thecommencement
                                                              of
     thetrial in this matter.

     2.       AlsoonJunen,2AO5, the Petitioner
                                             serveduponAttorneJRuthTolf Ansell

     a subpoenaducestecum/attached Exhibit B, seekingto compel the productionof
                                  as

     documenG 9:00 a.m.on June15,2005,one hour prior to the commencement
            at                                                        of

     the trial in this matter"

     3.      Eachof the subpoenaducestecum include a demandfor the productionof

     documents includedon rhe plaintiff's
             not                        ExhibitList(filedon May24,20O5)
                                                                      or
            Exhibit (filed June ZO0$.
      Amended     List    on  B,

      4.    ThePlaintiff
                       neverrequested production manyof thedocuments
                                    the        of
      included thesubpoena
             in          duces
                             tecumpriorto June 2005.
                                              13,
      5.   At the pre-trial
                          conference January 2005,it wasagreed discovery
                                   on      20,               that
      in thismafter
                  wouldbe concluded May.2,2005. Rule Conference
                                  by          See   62
      Report.

      6.    Transmittal
                     letters
                           conveying
                                   conformed           planning
                                           copies estate
                                                 of           documenu
      andall other:
                 sommunication     an
                             between attorney her clientsisprotec-ted
                                            and                     from
     disclosure
              urideiihe attorney-client
                                     privilege.Manyof the re{uested
                                                                  documents
                                                                          fali
     withintheattorney
                     clientprivilege.
                                    Rule502,Evidence.
     7.    Manyofthe requested
                             documents not relevant the pending
                                    are           to          issues
                                                                   and
     the requests overlybroad, beinglimitedin time or scope.Byexample,
                are          not

     Mairel. Burkecannotproduce
                              copies all income retums sheeversigned,
                                   of          tax   that
     all checking
                account
                      statements,
                               registers checks, all investment
                                       and     or            statements.
     B.    An undue    wouldbe imposed Mariel. Burke Ruth
                  burden             on             and TolfAnsell
     to produce of the requested
              all              information less
                                         in                     trial.
                                               thantwo daysbefore
     WHEREFORE,
             Respondent
                     Mariel. Burke Attorney
                                  and      RuthTolfAnsellrespectfully
request thisCourt:
      that

     A.        the
           Quash subpoena    to
                        issued Mariel. Burke;
     B.        the
           Quash subpoena
                        issued Attorney
                             to       RuthTolfAnsell;
                                                    and
     B.    Crantsuchotherandfurther
                                  reliefasthe Courtdeems         just,
                                                        equitable,

           andproper.



                                    -2-
                                                                   000043
                                    Respectfly subm
                                         uI        itted,

                                        I.
                                    MARIE BURKE

                                    Byandthrough attorneys,
                                               her

                                   ANSELL ANDERSON,
                                        &        P.A.
                                          -R^-_
 Date:June
         14,2OO5
                                       Tolf
                                   Ruth Ansell,  Esquire
                                   40 SouthRiver
                                               Road,Unit#32
                                   Bedford,.NH03110
                                   (603\64+821'l



Date:   14,
    June 2005
                                     -A=-
                                   Ruth Ansell,
                                       Tolf     Esquire
                                   40 South   Road,
                                          River    Unit#32
                                   Bedford, 03110
                                          NH
                                   (603)6448211

                         CERTIFICATION SERVICE
                                     OF
      I certify on thisdateI handdelivered
               that                      copies theforegoing vincentA.
                                              of             to:
Wenners, Esquire, BayStreet,
         Jr,,        B4        Manchester, 03104;James Normand,
                                          NH             A.          Esquire,
15 Highstreet., Manchester, 03104;ovide M. Lamontagne,
                         NH                            Esquire,11 Amherst
                                                              1
Street,
      Manchester, 03101; Danielle
                    NH     and         pacik,
                                            Esquir.,111Amherst Street,
Manchester, 03101.
            NH

Date:   '!4,
    June 20A4
                                   Ruth Ansell,
                                      Tolf    Esquire




                                    -r-
                                                                  0000,14
                                SUBPOENADUCES
                                            TECUM




STATEOFNEWIIAMPSHIRE
HILI-SBOROUGH,
             SS

TO:    ]\rls.Marie Burke
       121Arab Street
       Manchester, 03104
                    I{H


You are.required appear
                  to      before lfi[sborough eounty$rperiorCourt,300.
                                the                                  Chestnut
Street,
      Manchester, Hampshire, Wednesday, 15,2005beginning 9:00a.m,for
                     New           on          June                 at
a Court Trial to beheldby andbetwixt


Edward J. Burke v. Bunnyts Superette, Inc., ThomasM. Burke, Marie I. Burke and
Bernardine P. Donelson

and you are requiredto bring with you and produceat the time of tle Court Trial aforesaid,
the documents the attached
              in             list.




HEREOI'I'AIL     NOT, as you will answeryour defaultunder the penaltiesprescribedby law.

Datedat Manchesbr;N.H.            June13, 2005




                                                                                                 000045

               VNCENT A}JENNERS, JR, - ATTORNEVAT I.A'{ - 84 BAY STREET- MANC}IESTEN. NH OE1o4
 $wa1d r Burke v' Bunny's superette,
                                   Inc., ThomasM. Burke,Marie I. BurkeandBemardinep.
 Donelson

 Hillsborough CountySuperiorCourf
 Northem Distuict
 DocketNo.: 04-E-025i




       A1l exhibirslisted by any otherparty ro this acion.

       Any and all e-mail correqpondence,
                                       hand-writtennotesor other docunentswhich
       relateto this claim.

5-     any aa! all e-mail correspondence,     hand-writtennotesol other documents
                                                                                including,
       but trot limited to, accountingrecords,loan documents tax returnswhich relate
                                                               and
       to Bunny's Superefte,   loc. and fhis claim.

4.     Any trust documents rrrills executed Marie I. Burke.
                         or               by
J.     Auy deedsto or from the parties.

6.     Any and ail correspondence
                                exchanged the parties.
                                        by

7.    Any and atl pleadirys, interrogatoryarswers, depositions,photographs other
                                                                          or
      documentsin the possession any party to this i:rse or refterred 6y uoy pur,v
                                   of                                to
      in liis case.

8.    All Durable Powersof Afforney signedby Marie I. Burke.

9.    Health Care Powersof Aftomey signed. Marie L Burke.
                                         by

10.   Ail tran,smittal
                     letters conveyiagconformedcopiesof powers of Attorney, wills, trust
      or trust ameodments lvlarie I. Burke or ttre Marie I. Burke Trust.
                           of

11.   All checkingaccoutrt
                         statemeffs,registersand cancelledchecksof Marie L Burke.
1?.   All sunnaries of checkingaccounts,incomeand expenses,
                                                          preparedon Marie
      I. Burke'sbehalffor her accountants.

13.
      !9pies or au statemertsfrom stock brokers, itrvestrtreot
                                                             advisorsor othersregarding
      Marie I. Burke's stocls, bondsor any and all other invesfinerits.


                                                                              000046
14.   Copiesof all brnk 2ss6unfs, certificatesof deposit,stocksandboodsand any and
      all other invesmefis of Marie I. Burke.

15.   Copiesof all of Marie I. Burke's incooe ia,r retums.

L6.   Copiesof all of Marie L Burke's fioancial records.

I7.   Copiesor originalsof all Wills executed Marie I. Burkeprior to Jaauary 1999.
                                            by                             7,

18.                                  prepared ThomasM. Burke andgiven to Ruth Tolf
      A list of Marie L Burke's assets       by
      Ansell, Esquire.

19.   A list of lvlarie I. Burke's grandchildren nameandbirth dateprepared Thomas
                                                by                        by
      Burke and given to Ruth Tolf Aruell, Esquire.

2A.               relating to the purchase
      Ail documents                      and/or saleofreal esfatesituateat: Rockland
      Avenue, Mauchester,NH; North Adamsand WebsterStreets,    Manchester,   NH; and
      WebsterSffeet, Manchester, NH.




                                                                          000047
INTENTI,ONAI.ILYLEEI SLANK
                              SI]BPOENADUCESTECUM




 STATE OF NEW IIAMPSHIRE
 HILIJBOROUGH, SS

 TO:   Ruth Tolf ArueII, Esquire
       Ansell, Barratlale Law Firm
       40 South River Road
       Bedford Place- Unit 32
       Bedford,NII 03110


You are requiredto appearbeforethe HillsboroughCounty Superior Courr, 300 Chestnut
Street,Manchester,   New Hampshire,on Wednesday,June15, 2005 begiming at 9:00 a.m. for
a.Court Trial to be held by and betwixt


 Edwaril J. Burke y. Bunny's Superette,Inc., Thomas M. Burke, Marie I. Burke and
.Bernardine P. Donelson

andyou are requiredto bdng with you andproduceat the time of the Court Trial aforesaid,
the documents the attached
             in            list.




ffiREOF FAIL NOT, as you will arswer yoru default underthe penaltiesprescribedby.law.

Datedat Mauchester,
                 N.H.             June13, 2005



                                                                     ., Justiceof the Peace




             VINCENTAI'IENNERs,   JR. - AITORNEYAT LAW - A4 EAY STREET'- MANCHESTEF, NH @IO4
 Edward J. Burkev, Bunny's superette,
                                    Inc., ThomasM. Burkq Marie I. Burke andBemardinep.
 Donelson

 Hillsborough CountySuperiorCourt
 Northem District
 DocketNo,: 04-E-0251




 1.     All exhibits listed by any otherparty to this action.

 2.    Any and all e-mail correspondence,
                                       hand-writtennotesor other documentswhich
       relateto this claiu.

3.     Any and all e-mail correspondence,   hand-qnisentrotesor other documentsincluding,
       but not limited to, accountingrecords, loan documents tax returus which relate
                                                             atrd
       to Bunny's Superefte,  Inc. aqdthis claim.

4.     Any trust documents wills executed Marie I. Burke.
                         or              by

5.     Aay deedsto or from the parties.

6..    Any and all correspondence
                                exchanged the parties.
                                        by

7.     A,'y and all pleadings,interrogatoryanswers,depositions,
                                                              photographs orher
                                                                         or
       documents the possession any parfy to this caseor referred to ty rny party
                   in               of
       in this case.

8.     All Durable Powersof Attorney signedby Marie L Burke.

9.    Health CarePowersof Attorney signedby Marie I. Burke.

10.   All transnitral leters couveyingconformedcopiesof powers of Anorney, v/ills, trust
      or trust amendflrents Marie I. Burke or the Mrrie I. Burke Trust:
                            of

11.    A11checkingaccountstatemetrts,
                                    registersandcancelledchect:s. Marie r. Burke.
                                                                of
12.   A1l summaries checkiagaccounts,incorneandexpen$es,
                    of                                 preparedon Marie
      I. Burke's bebalf for her accouotants,

13. copies of all stateEents
                           from stock brokers, inveshent advisorsor othersregarding
      Marie I. Burke's stocks,bondsor any and. other investneffs.
                                             all


                                                                                  000050
14.                             certificatesofdeposir, stocksand bondsandany and
      Copiesof all bank accounts,
      all other inyestments Marie I. Burke.
                          of

15.   Copiesof all of Marie I. Burke's incometax return$.

16,   Copiesof all of Marie I. Burke's financial records.

17.                                                                     7,
      Copies originalsof all Wills executed Marie L Burkeprior to January L999.
            or                            by

18.                                   preparcdby ThomasM. Burke and givento Ruth Tolf
      A list of Marie I. Burke's assets
      Ansell, Esquire.

19.                                                                      by
      A list of Marie I..Burke's grandchildren nameand birth dateprepared Thomas
                                              by
      Burke and  given to Ruth Tolf Ansell, Esquire.

20.               relating to the purchase
      All documents                       aad/or saleof real estatesituateat: Rockland
      Avenue,Manchester, NH; North AdamsandWebsterStreets,Mauchester,          NH; and
      WebsterStreet,Manchester,NH.




                                                                             000051
                                    TI{E STATEOFNEWITAMPSHIRE
                                                                                                       GOPY
 HILLSBOROUGH,
             SS,                                                                               SI'PERIORCOURT
 NORTFIERN
         DISTRICT                                                                              04-E-0251

                                                        J.
                                                 Eilward Burke

                                                            v.

                                             Bunny's Sup€rette,lnc.,
                                      ThomasM. Bwke, Marie I.. Burke,
                                        andBemardine Donelson
                                                     P.

     PLAIIITIFF''S REOUESTS FOR FIIIDINGS OF X'ACT AIID RULINCS OF LAW

        ThePlaintiffrespectftrllyrequests the Court makethe following fiadings offact and
                                        that

ruling. of law:

        1.        ThereexistedbetweenBemardBwke, his wife, Marie Burke,aadtheir clildren,

EdwardJ. Burke,ThomasM. Burkq andBemardine Donelqor,a verbalagreemenl all of
                                          P.                        that

the propertyownedby Mr. andMrs. Burke,consistingprimarity of tle business
                                                                        ktorr,n as

Bunny's Supercttqandtbe real estate personal
                                   and     propertywhich wasderivedprimarily from

the profits andoperation               (i.e.
                        oftbat business, sitr:ateon Fine stee! 68 and 100webster sreeg

Liberty Steet andAmh Sheet)belonged themembers the Bwke family in oqualshares.
                                   to         of

Speoificaliy, Bwke andhis childrenagreed
            Mr.                        thatthe business Bunny's Superctts, lond
                                                      of                 the

andbuilding on which it was sihutq aadvariousotherrcal estate, additionto Mr. Burke,s
                                                             in

estatgwas"all of oursia equalshares".The oonsideration the agreement
                                                     for           was,on the part of
                                                                                                       f
the children,that eachof them work hardin the family bwinesswithout compensationThe

childrendid so andMr. and Mrs. Burke,althoughkeepingtbe legal tifle to thepropertyia their

nameor namesuntil 1999,actedin compliance
                                        with the agreement.

      2.      Theagreement
                         between partiescontinuedandwas observed
                                the                            affer Mr. Burke,s




                                                                                                           000052
                  VTITENTN.TTENNERS, JR.- ATTCRNIY.If   LJ\IIV- A4 BAY S'REET.   MANdJESTER, NH €tO4
deathin 1991. Specificalln Marie Burke,EdwardJ. Burke,Tbomas Burke ard BernardheP.
                                                            M.

             that                                equallyby the parties.
Donelsonagreed all zuchpropertycontinued be o'wned
                                        to                                                                   3.

     3.                                                                              was
                                                             lnown asBunny's Supereffe
               Specificalln after BemardBurkedie4 the business

                                                                ofshares)aad it
                       (andincorporated formalizedby the issuance
ownedin four equalshares              and

was a$eed that N{rs,Burkewoultl contimre hold legaltifle to the real estate hernane,
                                        to                                 in

althougbThomas EdwaldBurkewould maoage pro,perp her andgenerate rental
              atd                    the       for            net

                                                                            to
                                                       ofher estatq contiaued be
for her income. Thebwiness,the real estatgAndthe balance

omed equallyby the four (4) members the BurkeFamilydwing their lifetimesaud"at Marie
                                  of

                                                     EdwardandBemardine.
Burke's dea& would passin oae-thirdequalshares Thomas,
                                             to

          4.      Oral agreements
                                between                                                or
                                       parents childrento hold properryin suche Ina.nner
                                             and

to leavoan estate cbildrenin sucha marner is not unwual iu New lilampshire
                to                                                        jurisprudenoe'

   Tsiatsios Tsiatsios- N.H. 173(1995) Shaka Shaka120N.H. 780(1980).
See,       v.         140            and   v.

         wit! the Statuteof Fraudsor Statute Wiils is not requiredin orderto enforcesuch
Compliance                                  of

an agreemenl See,Foleyv. Elliot Hospital.93N.H. 186(1953);Bovle v. Dudle.v. N.H. 282
                                                                          87

                                                               part
(1935). The grounds enforcinga contractincludefirll performance, performance,
                   for

detrimental       quantum
          reliance,      menriq fraud,unduefulluence,andother equitableconsiderations.

          5.      Ia Tsiatsios.                orally promised bequeath farm aadmotel to
                              supr4 *re decedent              to      a

his childrenin exchange their promiseto pmvide services him without mo[etaxy
                      for                             to

compensafion- childrenperformed
            The                lheir part of thebargainfor a goodpart oftheig lives,

                                                                           often
working hardtom a youngageandforegoingmaayyouthfirl activities. The decedent

                                   ofthe real estate the cbildren in exchange their
repeated promiseregardinghis bequest
       his                                         to                       for

services.After his wife did                      tired a housekeeper executed will leaving the
                                      the decedent                and        a

propertyto his femalehousekeeper. jury foundtbatthe decedent madeanoral promise
                                Ihe                        bad



                                                                                                          000053
                   MI'IIf,NTA,WEI\DiIER.S, E. - ATTDFINSY,i.LAW-   A4 BAY STRE:T- MAN(}IESTER. NH OS1O4
 to bequeath estate his childreuin returnfor their cotrhihrtion to the family finances.The
           his    to

 Trial Court held that althoughordinarilyoral conlracts devise propertyascompensaxion
                                                      to      real

 for personalservices une,nforceable
                    are           undertbe StatuteofFrauds(seeRSA 506:1),it doesnot

fall within the Statute'\^,hen
                             someoperatingfacts,suchasfrau4 partperformance other
                                                                          or
                                "
 equitableconsiderations, present See,
                       are           IIam v. Goodrich.37 N,H. 185 (l 858),andWealev.

Massachusetts HousingCom.. 117N.H. 428 (1977). The Courtheld that the performance
            Gen.

ofthe serriceswassubstantial it wasnot necessary tbe childrenprovidethe services
                           and                 that                            up

imtil the dayof their father'sdeatb"The oldestohild beganworking for bis fatherwhenhe was

very young andhe wasneveridle. The agreement "tte pbilosophyunderwhich the family
                                           was

                   repeated promise"all the time." This evidence,
ran" aadthe decedent      his                                   which is remarkably
              '
simil6ls ttru1 th6 case bar,washeld by the Supreme
                       at                                                    of
                                                 Courtto sanctionthe existence a

valid offer, aoceptance, consideration.
                      and

        6.     In Isiatsios. someofthe real estatqasin the caseat bar,hadbeel conveyedby

the decedent the housekeeper. Supreme
           to              The      Courtheldthat underthe Uniform Fraudulent
'fralsfer
            Acf RSA Chapter545-A,the Trial Cornt wasableto setasidethe traruferunlessthe

harsfereetook in goodfaith andfor reasonably                       545-A:8, ta
                                                    value. See,R.,SA
                                           equivalent

Tsiatsios.anclin the caseat bar, the defendanq
                                             ThomasBurke,who wasthe transferee the land
                                                                             of

andbuilding on which Brmny'sSuperettgInc. sat did trot give reasonably        value in
                                                                     equivalent

exchange the tramfer and"asa resul! it is properfor ajudgmentto be entered {he
       for                                                                for

Plaintitr The Supreme
                    Courtheld that therewasno necessity the Plaintiffto obtalrl a
                                                      for

judgment againstMarie Burke,tbe transferor, Thomas-Burke, transferee,
                                          or           the          beforethe Court

is Bbleto setasidethe traLsferif in iloing so,it will effectuate agreement
                                                               tle       between parties
                                                                                the

andif by decliningto do so, it is rmableto edorce the agreement.          in
                                                               The decedent the Tsiatsios




                 VlllCllrlTA"WENNERE,   .,F|.- A'TTORNEYATlr}'/-   S4 BAY STFEET- MA^ICHESTER, NH @lO4   000054
   casq in fact madeit clearto thehousekeeper sheshould
                                           that        sell thereal esanebefore1tre
   children could'!ull it itrto courf'. This testimonyis remarkably
                                                                  similar to that offered.
                                                                                         by
  ThomasBurkethat his motherwasprompted conveythereal estate that
                                       to                  so     EdwardBurke.
  could not pull the will andtrust into probateCouri.

            7.     It is not necessar/ assert claim solelyagainst transferee fraudulentiy
                                     to     a                   the        of
  conveyedpropertyin orderto secure re+onveyance
                                  tle          ofthe same.See,TovrnofNottinehaq
 'v' Bonsur-146N.H. 41s (2001). It is not solelyagreements bequeath
                                                         to       property,or to                            leave
  estatss deatb'that areeitherenforced not enforced the supreme
         at                           or           by          court ofthe state                               of
 New rlampsbirebaseduponoraragreements, setasideoo the basisof ftaud
                                     or                                                              duress undue
                                                                                                           or
 influence' In Andersen Andersen r25 N.H. 6g6 (r 9g4),the supreme
                      v,                                         court herdthat a
 propertysettlenentin a divorce,like anyothercontractin the
                                                                              stateof New Harnpshire,
                                                                                                    may be
 set asidefor "fraud, undueinlhiencq deceitandmisrepresentation." Durkin
                                                                see,                                  v. Durkir t t 9
 N.H. 41 (1979). TheNew Hampshiresupremecourf heldtbat the basicrule wasthat the

 PlatntifFaged r. (i) a relationshipof husq (2) a heach of tbat tust, and (3) a resulting action
             tt

 which failed ro firlfill rheplaintif,psintentions.

        L        In Edserh v. Edqerly.23N.I{. 407 (1905),rhedecedent e4pressod
                                                                   had       an
intention of dyingintestale.As in the caseat bar,both lri{r.andMrs. Burke
                                                                                            had agreedthat the
propertybelonged themselves all of rheir childrenequally.
               to         and                                                    Marie Burke execgted will
                                                                                                    no
until rhomas Burketook her to his lawydrto wite the rrill. As in Edgerh.
                                                                         at xhedarqof the will,
Marie Bwke wasold andin feeblehealth,shewasnot likely to form new ideas,she
                                                                           co'uldbe
easily influencedto acc€de the wishesof rhomas Burkq andshe
                         to                                wasbroughtto the office of
ThomasBwke's larrye,rs,
                      Devine,Millimet & Brancb,whereshe,was
                                                          introducedto Attomey
Ruth Ansell. The burdenis on the plaintiff, EdwardBurkq to demonshate
                                                                    rvhetheror not it is



                 VII\CENTAI,ENNERS.   JR - A?ToFNEyAT l-IJrV- A4 BAy STRGT_   MA$EHESTEF, NH oslo4            000055
  more probable&an ofJrerwise, [4rs. Bwke's will, Trustandsubsequent
                            tbat                                  amendments htr
                                                                           to
  Trust' w€"eprepared uodueinfluence. TheNew llompshiresupreme
                    by                                        court held that the
 usualpresumption validity of the will doesnot arisewhenit is executed
                and                                                  underciroumsrances
 that the Testaxrix dependent
                  was       uponor subjectto the contuol
                                                       ofanother,makesa will in that
 other's favor, andthereis an absence
                                    showingthat the tansactionwasfair andhonest.

         9.     Tle Defendant,
                             ThomasBurkq unduryinfluenced Defendant,
                                                        the        Marie Br:rke,
 and to execute rrill and rrust in 1999,andto conveyreal estate ThomasBurke in 2004,
               her                                            to

 and thesetalsfers shouldbesetaside.

         10.    In Edgerty.supra" Supreme
                                the      Coudheld that whenever appears tbe Donor
                                                              it      that
 was dependent
             uponor underthe control ofthe Donee,andrhatxheDoneetook an activepart in
 procuring the gift, it may be infened that the gift wasprocuredby untlueinfluence. In Edeeill/.it

 could be ftulher fountl tbat the Doneewas the confdentialadvisorofthe Testalrixwith lespectto

all ofher i:usiness
                  a.fairg andthat shewas dependent
                                                 uponhim andsubjectto bis control in such
mattersandthat her conditionwassuchthat shewashardly capable forming new ideasbut
                                                           of
could be easiiyinfluencedto do ashe wishedandtbat the Donee$,asanxiousto haveher makea

will in his favor andtook her to a scrivenerofhis choosingwho executed will giving htm
                                                                     a
substautiallyall ofthe properly.

        11.    Marie Buxkewasdependent Thomas
                                     on      Burkoanclzubjectto bis contol and was

easilyinlluenoeilto makea will, Trust,and deedin bis favor.
                                                                                                    ,
        12.    Knox v. Perkins.86 N.H. 66 (1932)considered
                                                         verbalagreemenG
                                                                       madeby and
betweenthe parentsnd twe fesfsl clildren. As in the caseat bar,the agreement not limited
                                                                           was
to specificproperty,but to the total assets
                                          ofthe estate the tleory that tberewas a valid and
                                                      on
enforceablecoahactbetween motherandthe step-son re&aiufrom alteringtheir wills.
                         tbe                  to



               VINCENTA.'flENI{EFS,..R.   - ATTORNTEY t-!g/ - A4 FAY STFEET- MANC}IESTEF, NH @1o4
                                                    AT
                                                                                                        000056
  Performance .themot&erof herpart of the agreement
            by                                    woulil laketle caseout of the Statuteof
  Frauds. seg southemv. Kithedge.84N.H, 302. Likewise,the stahrreof wills would
                                                                                not be

                                                dispositionof property. see,'white v.
  violated for zucha conbactis not a testamentary

  Winchester. Md. 518.
            124

         13'    The Plaintiffhas substantially
                                             prformed the agreement working for yearsand
                                                                 by
 Marie Bwke breached agreement transfeningnearlyall of herproper{yto the Defendatrts
                   the       by

 beforeher death.

         L4'   In the case bar,the agreement
                          at                      Mr.
                                           between BemardBurkeand Marie B*rke,
 andtheir children,wasthat all threeofthe childrenwolld berreated
                                                                equallywith respectto their
 parenls' estate' Thi! agreement to be implementeduntil 1999,by ueatingthe properry
                               l'Es                                                as
 equallyownedduringMarie Burke'slifetime andat her rleathby Mrs, Burke dying intestare
                                                                                      or
 oa6o*i"s fividing her estateequailyamongher children- It ,oasonly in 1999that Marie B!*e

 actuallyor anticipatorilybreached agreemen!because the undueinfluenceof rhomas
                                 the              of
Burkg andexecuted wiil, Trust anddeed,in vioiation ofthe agreement.
                 a

        l5'    This courthasthe authorityto enforcearragreement settingasidetrar5fbrsby
                                                              by
dee4 ol Trusl or modi$ing suchinstruments otherwiseexercising remedies
                                        and                  ali     which it has
ia equity' upona showingthat thepartiesexecuteddeeds conveyance,
                                                   of         trusts,or other
agreements to fraud,duress,
         due              undueinfluencq deceitor misrepresentationseeDurkin. supra

at 119' The courtmay grantreformatiooin propercases
                                                  wheretheinstrumeirt(in thiq,case,
                                                                                  the
deedftom Marie Burketo the Trust andthen the Trust xoThomas
                                                          Burke,asweli asthb pour-over
o*t,*    the variousamendnents the Trust) fails to express intentionsthat the partieshad
                             to                          the
in making the original agreernent bearall members the family egualy. see, Erin Food
                                to               of
servs" Inc. v. 688Prdps.. l9 N.H. 232(1979);Gaqronv. Fronovost. N.H. 58 (1951).
                        I                                    9?



               VIttlCENTAtl/EhlNERS, rn'IORNEyAr LAl,V a4 BAy STREET- MAI{CHESTER. osro4
                                  -B.,               -                          NH         000057
         16.    In Crnticev. Dixo4 ?4 N.H. 3g6 (1902),theNew ltrampshire
                                                                       SupremeCourt
  corsideredthe elements
                       ofundueinfluencein determiningwhether uot to setasideor compel
                                                           or
  the restit'tion ofpropertytransfened oneparty to his niece'pon thegrouodsofundue
                                     by

  irfluence. The ovidence thatthetransferorwaseighty-eight
                        was                              yearsold whenthe contracrwa$

 madeandthat tberewereothernephews nieceswho hadbeenteated equaly in his will,
                                 and

 prior to the transferin question.The Supreme
                                            Court held that theTrial Courtproperly inquired

 asto whetheror irot the haf,sastion uqiust and ureasonablq autlthatthat finding would be
                                   was

 evidenceasto not only mentalcompetence asto unduei:rfluence.The decedent theright
                                      but                               had
 to disposeofhis propers ashe sawfit, but ifthe disposition'was         or
                                                              uueasonable uqiust or
 naturallyto be expected, maybe colsideredasevideoce
                        it                          ofundueinfluence.

        17.    The dispositionofthi.sillatter is unre€isonable unjustin view ofthe agreement
                                                            and

 madeby the partiesandthe adherence the samefor manyyearsprior to 1999.
                                  to

        I 8.   TheDefendant,    gug., actedfor a numberof yearsasa de facto atromey
                           Thomas

 for Mmie Burke. Accordingly,if the Courtwereto fi$d that thehansGrof real estate Thomas
                                                                                 to
Burke, the executionof the wili andrnrst by Marie Burke,weresubshntialproduce of the

control which rbomas Burkeheld overMarie Burke andher decisions
                                                              regardingproperty,
ThomasBurke shouldb€ held to the sane standard requiredfor aaagentas setforth by RSA
                                              as

cbapter 506. specifically,RSA 506,rv (b) providesthat if the agent
                                                                 madea traosferfor less
than adequ4te
            consideratio4the agentsball berequiredto proveby a preponderence
                                                                           gftte
evidencethat the transferwasautlorized andwasnot a result ofundueinfluence,fraut or

misrepresentation.
                 ThomasBurke6* oo1*91rhis burdenofproofl

       t9-     The attached
                          chrooologr derronsfrates th6 Defendants
                                                 that           purposelykept the

Plaintiffin the dark andmadecbanges divestcontrol of all assets ThomasBurke and clivide
                                  to                          to




               UNaENTA-VJENT\ER9,
                               JR-ArlaRNE   ATr-Arir- €4 EAy stREET- MA'{CLESTER. q1o4
                                                                                NH
                                                                                         000ost
zubstantiallyall assets
                      betweenThomas
                                  BurkeandMaris Burke.



                                                 Respectfirllysubmitled,
                                                 EdwardJ. Burke
                                                 By his Attome.y,


Dated:June15,2005

                                                 84BayStueei
                                                 Manchester, 03104
                                                           NH
                                                 (603)669-3970


                                         CERTIT'ICATION

     I hereby
            certif thata copyofthewithinRequests Fiodings
                                              for       ofFactandRulingsof
Lawhasbeen haad-delivered James Normand,
                         to      A.               OvideM. Lamontagnq
                                           Esquire,                Esquirq
andDanielle L. PacilqEsquire,RuthTolf A:nsell,                            counsel
                                                                 optr)osxlg                  t


                                                                           Jr.,Equire




             vI{cs$lTA"$/EN @q -,R - trTORNF/ rtr tArr, - Bl BA'' STFEET- },ANCIIESTERNH OSrO4
                                       TTIESTATEOF NEW TIAMPSHIRE

HILI.SBOROUGTI,SS.                                                                  SI'PERIORCOURT
NORTI{ERN DISTRICT                                                                  04-E{251

                                                  EdwardJ. Burke
                                       .
                                                            v.

                                              Bu ly's SuperettgInc.,
                                                 lvI.
                                           Thomas Burke,Marie L Burke,
                                             andBernardine Donelson
                                                         P,

                                  PLAINIIFF9S MEMORANDT']i{ OF I.I\W

I. FACTS:


         I. THE AGREEMENT:

         The agreement                                                     their childro4
                           Bernard Maris Burte and&lwar4 ThooasandBomardine,
                     between      and

wastlat everyole wasto work lard andassoonastheywereablq for fte connon benefitofrhoir family. In reu:r4

eachmemberofthe frmily owncdan equalehare the hmily busirsssandthefrnily's pfopsrty,and.upou the
                                        in

                              wouldcontinue own equalshares.Moneyald frmily wue aboutequal in
deathofthe parentqthe ohildretr           to

importamercasthe philosophytryonwldchtle Bu*o chil&en havebesurahsq acoording testimonyof ldarie
                                                                            tre

Burke.

         ThomasBui<o tsstifiedno suchagreement                testified 'shc did not tbinld' thereflas
                                            exi$ed Maric Burke.        Sd

                        testifi€dliat shedid not reoall orc rray or theother,her frfter, BemardBurke,
suchao agreemenlBemardine

                     that
telling frmily mombors the agreeE€nt ftat all woreworkiqg for oneatlofter atrdihat all membsrsof rle
                                   ws

fumily ownedtlo businesgreal or persomlpmpertytnatrcsuttedfrom thopmfit or reveuue
                                                                                 oftbe businesqcquaUy.

                        coulilhave'n,de &esestatqn ts or he couldnothavemadetheso
Sh€testifiedt}'ar Bemaral                                                                   Shejust
                                                                                 statemetrts.

                                                                                              were
did not recall Shetestifiedthat Thomas E6?ard spsrt moretime with thebusin€ss sud convorsatioos
                                     add                                    and

moreliksly to.hsveoccwredbetweon
                               trem andh€r frll€i thrn to havcincludedher. Shedid testi$ tral after

                                            amolg Thomas,Edward,
BcmardBurke died in I9l, therewe!€discussions                  Made andhorselfregardingthe

                      (as
businsss itwas decidod shorecallod, hcr ownsuggestion) the business iuco+oratedand sbar€s
       and                        at                              be
                                                     llat
      to                                                                rvas
issued all foljf ofthen equatly,Bernlfditrsdid not work h$o stor€in 1991, manid hadher olvn ftoily,

                                    bwiness Shewasclearlyofths ophion, in 1991,whenshemadeher
andvas engaged time in theresl cstato
             ftll




                                                                                                     000060
                 VINCENTAV/E!|!€F. -R.-lfl.IoF!€YArr-Aiv-        84 Brrr STREET-MANCIETE&NH Gllotl
 suggestion shedid, in fac! owna one-quarter
          that                             interes!at leastin the businers..
                                                                           Whenaskedwhetheror not the

         includedthe realestate, indicat€d she'lflas not in" on tlFt discussiouBemardine not know
 agreement                     sho       that                                          did

 oneway or another
                 whetheror not therealestate includedin whatwasto be o*tred equallyby &e family and"
                                           was

 aPartftom the equaltwenty-fivehterestihet eachmember
                                                    ofthe family eachownedin thebwiness, balance
                                                                                       the      of

 tln agreement an-anged
             was      amongEdward,
                                 Thomas Marie,
                                      and

        Afier BemardBuke dieclin I 97I , Marie, ThomaqEdwardand Bemanlinere-affirmed agre€ment,
                                                                                   the       ie.,

 that the family propertywasownedequallyby all ofthern and at Marie's deatl! uras be ownedequallyby
                                                                                 to

 Thomas,
       EdwardandBemardine.Theonly modificationto the agresment thatalthough realestatewould
                                                             was          the

 coDtinue remainiDMarie's namq shewouldreceivotherontalincomeftom thesame, trat thebusinesses
        to                                                               and

 would, for insuranoe liability purposes, incorporard with aUfou1owningan equalnumber
                    and                be                                           ofsharesof

 stook ln addirio4 it r+!s und€rstood all oftho partiesthatin the mid-1980s(approxinately1985or l9EO, when
                                    by

 Marie Bur*e became shewouldcoUect
                  65,            her.Sooial
                                          Securitychecksandcash same.Shetestifiedthat shedid
                                                               the

 so andthat thoseSocialSeoudty     providedher wifr her cashneedsfrom ttrattimermtil thepr€sent,wiflout a
                              checks

needto eitherdepositthe samo thejoird aocount
                            into            wilh Thomas, to withdrawary zuffintial amountsof cash
                                                       or

Aom thatjoint accounl

              and
        Thomas BdwardBu*e relied on tlis agresment
                                                 their entirelives. Theyr+orked the frmily business
                                                                              at

from the time theywereyoungchiftlronuntil thepresenl Elnard beganworking in the restsurant
                                                                                         when ho uas t€n

or twelvo yearsold andis nov sixty. Hc sp€nt
                                           ify y€orsofhis life working in reliancouponthis agreemetlL

Thomas
     Bur*e also*or{<edin reliauceuponttris agree'mong
                                                    albeit with somefilrtler'limo oF to attendcollegeanil

spend                       and
     sometime in the Sorvice, heper:formed
                                         somewhrit                              Donelsonalso
                                                lighter dutiesasa ohil4 Bemardine

relied uponthis agreemeng
                        uorking tbroughhor childhoodandyormgadultyean until shemanied,beganteaching"

antttheu later became realtor. Shohascontinued
                    a                        until thepresent                  help
                                                            time to occasionalty out in the fanily

business,
        whether a cashiu or a realtor,andwasnot needed work evoryday,aswereThomas Ed',rard- She
              as                                     to                         and

wasneverltreless
               contide$d to be au oqual participating    ofthe family insofarasormership
                                                    member                              was concerned.

        EdwardBurkerelied sa rtricagesmenlte his dehiment. Accordingly,thercwasadequate           for
                                                                                      consideratiou

the agreement" wor{<od
             He      everysingledayofhis life for tLe family business
                                                                    from approximately age ofteu
                                                                                     the

                                                                          activitiesin order19rpork- frst
until Februafy,1996. He gaveup lunchhoursduringschoolaswell asafter-scftool



                                                                                                           00006r
                 VNICEIITA,V/ENI.,IERA,JF.- AI-IDRNFTF   L4fl- A4 EAY SIIIEET-   MA'.IC'IESIER. Tfi G|o4
 in therestatlrar$ then in the storamd related
                 atrd                                       pulposes.The wholefamily workedhardandtook
                                              famitybtisiness

 but a few tips beforeEdward'shigh schoolyears York Beacll Maine; otherwisetherewereno vaoations
                                              to                                               snd

 Edward'safter-school
                    activitieswerelimitedto occasional         games.
                                                    CYO baseball    Ertwurdreceived salaryfor his
                                                                                  no

 work until afterh6 wasmarried some                   fronrhigh sc[oot. EveuthelLhis salary
                                   yearsaftergraduating                                    was barely

 whathe n€eded sureive. Althou€bthebusiness o',med
              to                          was                                       therewasno
                                                  equallyby all ofthe fanily menbers,

 doubt Bernard
     that    Burkewas boss hedetermined andhowmuch
                     the ard         wheo              Bude'ssalary to be.
                                                  Edward          was
         Ed$ad Buke testified butfor tle ageenent hisrelianco thesame, woultl
                            ttrat               and         on       he     havelooked
 elsesthere much
         for   higher
                    salary compensatiou nothave
                         or          atrd     sp€nt y€als hedidworking thefamily.
                                                  the    that        for

                       arguethatEdwardBuke rrasadequatoly
 The Defendmlsappar€ntly                                compensated his yean ofwork io the fanily
                                                                  for

 business
        firsl by havinghis mom andmealspaidfor aswell asclotbingad othe! cos6 ofbeiry broughtup,

       with an allowance useofthe family carwLenhe*as young prior to his marriage, secondby being
togother                and                                                      aod

paid a mlary oncehe wasmanierl Howwor, the oompensation to Edr+ard
                                                     paid         Bu:ke afterhis rnarriage
                                                                                         vas

marginalcompared
               with whathe coulcl
                                haveeamed       giventhe numbe(ofhours andlolalty he exteuded
                                        elsewhero                                           to

the &mily business,      with his aie*
                  together                 a.ud                                  d
                                                               severalsupermartets orc time,
                                              ability to op€rate

         Edwardwould not havswor*edsohard for solong,aadfor so litflc money,but for tte agresm€nt his
                                                                                                asd

beliefthat he ott:redan equalsharein theBmily business in the real aadpersonal
                                                     and                     prop€rtythatthe busitress

generated child works&om the ageoften rmtil nalliags in his earlytwontiosfor no compensation all rmlpss
         No                                                                                at

thereis somefinancialundershnding a[d botween bthenod the son, &hrad Brrks wouldbsve rct dovoted
                                by          the

thal arnomt oftime ofhis oarlychildhood adultyears no pan simply out oflovs for his frmlly, Hs did so
                                       ard        for

becauss relied on the agreemont he omed an equalshqe in the frnily busincs andfro real andpersonal
      ho                      thar

propertyderivedtom lhe profie offte businecs.

        All partiesagree the &rnily relationships
                        ihat                               but
                                                dst€rioratsd do not agreeon the cawc fhe caue is

probablyirrelevanl !




       I &lwardBur*eaudBeruardhe   Donolsontectifed G'nily relationships voryclose
                                                   that                  were         whontho
                                                                   'lelatioDshipC' Fsbruary,
fmily wasyouuger, tlat thefrrnilybegao driff aprt butstill mahtained
                and                    to                                       until        1996
when Edward Bu&elbftitc store.Theirr8collectionprobably most.acourale.
                                             is         the



                 Vll{cENrAwEI$\ER5, -R.- ArcRt{EyFr.rW-   a4 E{Y srFEtr-   MANqIESfER NH Gttc}4
          2.      TEE, GROWTH OFTIIE FAMILY BUSINESS3

          Not only did Edwardbuild the business thenormalsense
                                              in             ofthe word, he literally andphysica y buitt   the

. building in which &s markeris locatedtoday. He porformed ofthe construction
                                                         all                wodg together
                                                                                        with his &frer, to
  rsnovatsthe restauxaot two separate
                      anil          buildings busitresses whal is now Bunny,sSuperette.He cotrverEd
                                             {itrd      futo
  part oftlE houserhal is now the marketinto a boarding    and
                                                      house naintahed it Bemarcl
                                                                               Burkead EdnardBurke
  wereliterally buildingthe sior€! vitile BemardBurkewasalsoon the roadsellinglife insurance orderto getcash
                                                                                           h
  for ftrthef materials ronovations.Dudng&is tine, Edward,Mari€ andBemadine workeditr the storeunlil it
                      and

 wasfnished' andup andnbnin& at whichtimeMadeBudGwassble to stayat homeasa housewifs.

         EdwardBurketestitredthat he did not attendcollegebecause hadno real optionandwaswolking righx
                                                                he
 anddayto build up &o brsinessaudtying to build &e frnily's fi:nre. Altlough Thornas Bsmardineaft€rded
                                                                                   ard
 college,the tuition wasineryensiveandttey lived at homeandtheyworted in the business
                                                                                    afterschool 1homas
 att€trded two-yearcollegethen knownasNsw ttanpsbiroCollegeof Acoormting Commerc€ B€rDardille
         a                                                             and      enat
 wentto collogoat Nofs Dameco ogE btt shecontfuued wod<in the storeafter schoolanclon weekeads.
                                                 to

         Mward Burto continuedworting witt his rather
                                                    nhile ltromas wasstill in school. He ad his frth€r

 boughta Eark€t on RocklandAvenueon the wort side ofMarchester. Theyboughta slore(ron Thumb)in

 Massachuseth Edwardtook ib eEtirB
            and                   contEnts,
                                         includirg iaventoryandequipmor4andinstalledit in the

 Rocklrnd Aveouertore. Then .he op€ned storeand@an runniDg vith the assisrance his hther and
                                     the                  i(                 of
Bomqdine,

        BornardBwfte andEdwardalsoboughtanother
                                              ma*et on EIn Streetin March€ster,
                                                                              naned Rydall,s
Mar*el tt llas operaled
                      only for sk to eightmonths
                                               becauso, &tward's ophion, it wasa micbke to havs
                                                      in

                                                      (oalh, both Ryda 's Madct andthemarketon Rocklanat
purr'has€d as it vas an othnicmarkel h'ior to B€roard's
         it,

Avenrue
      wslc sold" Bemllal Brtrke hadhadamyocadial inhrction antl&lrryanlsold tha RocklandAvenle bgsiness,
hd retainedaudcout'nued rcnt the laddatrdbuildingon vhich it wassifralo to thensw ou61€rs the ston AU
                       to                                                               of
ofthsse transactions,
                    includingthe buildingofButrDy'sSup€retlc, RocklanrlAvenuestoreandRydall's 1v1a*ot,
                                                            $e
together
       with otherreal satc purchases thepoceodsofthe saleofRydall'r Market andthe RocklandAvsnue
                                   aad

stot€wereall oonsidered b€ a Partofthe &mily brsiness.The business in ths orme or nameg Berna:daod
                      to                                         was                  of
Mario Buks, but rcvutheless, mrsiilerod aspartolthe onobusinoss.



                                                                                                     0001)63
                 VTNCENTA"IIEr€\ERA
                                  JR.-'N.IDRNEY&'t.AW- A.' BAYSTREET- MAT€r'ESTEN. c[tKlt
                                                                                 NH
              Approxinatelyitr I 966,the Intemal Rsvetrue
                                                        Service       the
                                                               audited business.BernardBu*e wasnot a good

              and          for
    bookfteeper theaccouDtant the business
                                         advised
                                               Edwardto handle finances
                                                              the      ofthe business. thendid
                                                                                     He
'
    so r:ntil he lefr.Bunny'sSuperene February,1996.
                                    in

                  Burkedid not work in the family bwine*suntil thelate 1960s.BemardBr:rketold Edwardthat
             Thomas

    Thomaswasto returnto lhe business, althoughEdwarddid not think thathe should acceded his father's
                                     and                                               to

    wishes.BernardBurkerweatodto Eduard that thebusiness
                                                       continued be ownedby everyone
                                                               to                  equally,andthat

    inoluded      whethef vas working at the storeor no! andBernardine
            Thomas,     he                                           whetheror lot shewasworking in the

    store.

             In 1971,afterBernsd Bu*e's deatb,all parties€r€od to co ime theagreament all four owned
                                                                                    that            the

    brsin€ssandall rcal eshioandpersonal               fiom thebusiaess the years. Marie Bute hadlitle,
                                       propertygonerated              or'er

ifanything to do wiih busiussaffairs ofany sort after 197I, includingtheincorporation.Shetold Edwad Burke,

                                                                         A$omey cherlesDunnandhe
ashe testified,to simplydo vhat he thoughtwas fair. He andTlomas consulted

advised                                                                  by
       themto incorporae,md so they did- The incorporation not conside.red EdwarilBurto to be a'giff'
                                                         was

from Mariq sinceho alrcadyovned his one-fourthshare.Furthr, theparties     tbat
                                                                      agreed th€ realestatewould

oontinue remainin Mrie's namefor incone ard tax pwposes, uould be ownedby all four equallyand,on
        to                                             but

Mario's deatb,by the threechildrenequally.In soholdingthereal estale, rentalincomewouldbepaid to Marie
                                                                    tho

                         &o
andthis incomewouldreplace incomelo$ Aom B€rurd Buke.



             3. MARIE BURKE'S ESTAIE IS TH3 FRUTTOF BI'NNIIS MARKET:

             BemardBmkc's estate iDsolvent he owednrorethanhe orned. Thoprobateofth€ EstatsofEemard
                                was

Bur*e (Soe,Defendard                                           an
                        Bu*e's Bxhibit A) indic*es thatthererBas itrver$oryofpenonal propertyof
                   Thomas

                   ofmoior vohiclesatrdthe business
$71,$0.00 oonslsting                                                                 Ths final
                                                                  valuedat $68,913.00.
                                                  ofBuny's Superese

accormt               by
      filed andapproved &e ProbateCourt listeddebn of$63,774.00 consist€d
                                                               and       offive (5) bank loBtrs

                                                          secured thoproperty&en ownedby Bemard
totaling $33990.00. Four(4) ofthecs b6Dkloansweropresumably     by

Burke md Marie Burtq ie,, &e land andbuildinp on PinoSmeq thohouso Arah Stree! 5$ Websts Steet, and
                                                                  on

landandbuildings* RmklandAvenue. Alsb listedwerer€4lestate.hx€s the amountof04,664.00,$7300,00 for
                                                              in

air conditioningfor Bunny's$+oret!o, and$2,570.00              debt In ser'tion3 on Form l0l, asjointly
                                                 ofmiscellaueous

                                                      (Arah She8t,
holdpropcrty,werelistedtle foin (4) parcelsofrsl estate          RocklandAvenue,68 WsbstefStest and




                                                                                                   000064
                     V|!{CENTAHEM\ES6'-tl -rinoFr{E   Atlaty-a4BAYg!TiEEr-I|ANCflE5TEBNH   €to/l
 the two parcelswhichcomprise landandbuildingsfor Bunny'sSuperette ?7 WebsterStreet 753pine
                            dre                                  Bt               and
 street). Also listedweremiscellaneous
                                     stocksaadboncls rheamount
                                                   in        of$63,530-00, a total ofcurrently-held
                                                                         for
 proPrty valuedat S184216.00. valueswereaccepted the IntomalRevenue
                            Tho                by                 Service a ClosingLetter
                                                                         and
 issued.

           The Plaintifi, EduardBurkg testifiedthat BernardBurkewasessenrially
                                                                             insolvenl Thsrealestatewas
 encumbered mortgages the banls callodthe samo required to makeanangemeots payttre$anle
          by        and                       and      him               to
 off He wusableto re-arrange bwinesscashflov to do so. He rmsalsoofthe opiniontha! with the exception
                           fte

 ofone stoclgthe stocksandbondsheldby his fatherwereessentially
                                                              ofno value. The Plaiatiffs opinionofthe

 valu€ofdhestocl\3 bonls wasessentially
                  snd                 correctbecause November,
                                                   by        l9M, the valueofMarie Burke's

 portfolio was$3,610,95. ThePlaintifi, BdwardBurke,testifiedthatthebrisiness really worth little or nothing
                                                                           was

       he                   Burke,continued r, ork Accordingly, famity agreed their continued
 unless andhis broth€r,Thomas              to                 the            to              co-
 ownorship the business thereal estate provicle incentive BdwardBurkeaodthomas Burketo
          in          aud             to       an        for

continue',tor&i4g" by leving Se realestate Marie Burke's namqto altow Bunny'sSrryomtte fte other
                 and                      in                                         and

retrtalpmpertiesto payretrtinto the 'teal es,talo
                                                accounf contsolled Bt*ard Bur{<e Thomas
                                                                 by            and    Buke, for Marie

Bu*e's benefiL The balance             ofcourse,wasrhatsnyadditionalrcal estate assesaccumulated
                         ofthe agroemenl                                       or

by Marie Burkeasa rosultofthis agreemont
                                       would contitrus tr ouaedby tle frrnily asa goup, in equalshares,
                                                     to
partfunladyif tho same
                     werethe prweds of the re al incomeofthe propertyownedby fte &r,ily, orthe salcof fto

same-

         Marle hadno incomefrom anysourceod[errhanBumy,s Superstie.
                                                                  ltomas andFrtwardBurketestified

that thg busfuess reallynot worih anything
                vas                       rmless or both agreed continjre
                                                one           !o         rurning lhe stors. The r€al

estatewasvorth verylifrle h 1971,dndits yaluewasoftst by mortgag€
                                                                indebtedness. umsonly beca{se
                                                                            It               of

                          efforts(andto someextentBernardire's)
ThomasaadEdward'scotrtinued                                   rhetthe real€state ableto getrerate
                                                                                uas

incomefor Marie aa4 ultimat€ly,to hcreasein equity. Furthereooetionrto the real osrato
                                                                                     (100 Webster
                                                                                                Steet and

Liberty Sfreet)wer€likewlsederivedfrom theprofits ofBunnyt Supersse thc effortsofE{tsard andThonas
                                                                  and

Burke' Ibe real estate Mmie Burke'spersoaal
                     and                  estate the ditcl rcsrlt ofthe pro6b geneSated Buony's
                                                are                                  ftom

SuperBtt€ ths effolb ofThomasandEdwardBute, andaresubject theagrcem€nt theparties
        and                                             to           lh4r        uade itr

r97t.
        The dealMarieBuke medsin l97l tras agood one at tte tine showasiplolvent andhadno income,




                  VSEENTAITENT\GRSiI JR - A'ICRI{FTA'   T.ATV-eI4 BAY EIREET- ftANCHE5IER, '*I TET&I
                                                                                                       000065
 Shehashadover thirty-five yearsofsubstantial
                                            incomeandcomforbbleliving. Shehasneverhadto vrite a checg

                        paidby the'reat estrtea.ocoun!" v,hen becamo
 hashadall ofher expernes                             and    she   sixg-five cashed Social
                                                                                  her

              to
 Securitychecks spendasshewished.Shehasseenher rcal €stateincrease valueand hasbee! ableto
                                                                 in

 accumulale portfolio ofappmximately$250,o00,
          a                                 over half ofwhich is from &e proceeds
                                                                                ofthe saleofthe

        at
 Premises I 00 WebsterSteet andthepremises RocklaodAvenue.Theagre€m€nt
                                         at                         madeio I 97I hasserved

 Marie Burkewell andis certainlyadequatlconsideration her promise teat hortbreechildrenoqually.
                                                    for         to

                    Thomas Edvranlcontinued work longhoun nearlywery day after 19?1,andnever
         lvleanwhile,     and             to

 would havedoneso hadtley mt colsidercdthemselves be equalownenofthe family propertywith Marie Burke.
                                                to

Affer BernardBu*e's dealhin 1971,E*aard Burte's financialdutiesincluded         all
                                                                       addrecsing ofhis mother's

pelsonalneeds well asthe frmily business.
             as                         The business moueyoftt6 famity wes so inlegrated.th,r,
                                                   and

pursuant the agre€ment, fiom BEry's Suporette well asthe othsrr€al eshteo'rned u€s paid into ajoht
       to            rsnt                   as

accornt in the narnes Bhsrd audTbsmas
                    of               Bwkq in which eachbad$ign'inry arlfority, antl rnaintaineit
                                                                                               by

Fdward Burkein the storooffica by thestorebookkeeper. c,hecks signed EdwardBurte, for themos
                                                   The      wero    by

parL The incomeinto lhir accotd wascoDsistently                             ofthe parties. Ite account
                                              considered part ofthe agreement
                                                       as

wasrcfe[ed to lhoughout the conse ofths tial variouslyastto 'teal €stalsaccomt' avlarie's personal
                                                                                                 accounl"

or the Soir accoutrl" All oftle fucomefrom lte rentalprop€rtyw€otinto Mario'saccount,aswell asa small

salaryfrom Bumy's Marketwhiohwaselsopaid into thst accoutr!althoug[sbono lolger vorked inthe store. AII

       Aom therentalpropertywerepaidfrom tto accoun!aswell asall ofMaris Burke's persomle:eendibr€€.
exp€oses

               e)penditureo
Marie's porsoDsl          rangedfiom itemsassmallasmegrpine          to
                                                          subscritions, utilities, h€atin$ real esnO

                 Macy'e biIs, Filene'sbi s, andanyotherday-todayexpenses
taxeson hor house,                                                     ofliving. Ihero wereperiodic

decls !o casl for Marie ar well (S€o,       Thomas
                                    Defsndant     Bu&e's E fiibit A).

        lvlarie'ssstalBvJas              whenThomasandEihrardprrdased the 100Webst€rstrEet
                          frrr&eraugmonled

properly an l the Lib€tty Sreot prDperty put thc samein Marie'snane. Marie Bmke wasunableto testi& asto
                                       ard

whereandhow ths cashwasderivedfor lhe purchase
                                             ofthese proprtios, Thomas EdwardBuko agreod the
                                                                     and                that

osshfor thetwo pmpertieccameAomrefinancing 68 Websl8rSteet Property.Pwchase
                                         ths                                            were
                                                                           mon€ymortgages

given to the Manchesler            &                          Streot beenpurchased Bomard
                      FodoralSavings tnan Association 6EWbbstBr    had           by

Buke prior to his deathin 1971,usingthconly incomethatbe had,lhc piofits fiom Brmny'sSuperetle.All ofthe

real €state BemardBu&e purchased his Drmeasjoist tenas lvift Marie alsor.vas
           that                in                                          derivedffom tho prcfits




                 vtr{cENTAWEtSGRa -h,-AnORNEYAT rew- g4 aAy SFEEr- !qM}€ETEFL NH OgtO4
  &om Bumy's Supereffe waspart oftho family business enlerprise,
                     and                           and         ofwhich eachofthe partiesorvnedan
 equalshare,

          In additionto purohasing pmpertyby re-faancing 68 websterstseet,
                                 the                                     ThomasandEd,aardBurke

 obtainedtenants the proporly,oollected
                for                   reDts,
                                           armnged the performance
                                                  for            ofrepairs,maintained booksand
                                                                                    the
 reoords,deposited rentsto tle dedit ofMarie Burke(albeit itr thejoint chocking real eshteaccount)in
                 all                                                          or

 acoordance their agreemenq srob evorysinglecheck MarieBurkeneverwote a cieck in her lifg at least
          with            and

' afror BemardBur&e'sdeathin 1971. AII expenses respect tie rentalproperfy
                                              with    to                  were alsopaidthlough the

 sameaocouogsuchasthemortgage,    rcpairs,utilities, aadnrel. Any equig that acctuedin ihe propertiescame
                             taxes,

 ftom a combination theinitial downpayment
                   of                                                Steet (*dch in tum cameFom
                                         Aom the re-financo 68 Websl€r
                                                           of

 the profib of Bunny'sSrperctte), well aslhe effortsof Mqrud andThomas
                                as                                   Br:tke. The r€al esbls at 100

 WebsterStee! Liborty Streel andRockland
                                       Avetru€, weu asArahStee! audtlreproceeds
                                              es                              oftle saleof anyof

 that teal estate, all derivedfrom tboprofib ofBunnys Superette well astheefforb ofEd.rard andThomas
                 are                                          as

 Bud$ aq4 to someexteff Bemardinc(whoact6dasa realtorfor I 00 Webster
                                                                    St6ot andt[e RocklasdAvonue

 sales). The real estate cleerlypartofti€ family enterprise theagreement
                        was                               and         mado. Maie Buke did norfiing

with resp€.tto thepurchase,
                          repah,renbl financial mort€age,
                                                        payment            maintoDanco,
                                                              of&e mortgags,         and/orsale

ofthe properties. EdwardanrtThomas
                                 Buke performed ofsuc;hduties.
                                               all




        4. 1996TffiFT:

        The Defendants
                     $€gest th!t Edward                     ofBunDy'sSuper€tsin Febmary,1996
                                       Burte lsft thebusiness

voluotarily an4 accordingly,
                           shouldforfeit anyand.a dgbb that hehesuad€'r agreement It is the Plaintifs
                                                                      tbs

                                              insofarasho wasemployed, rhat the agre€rnetrt
position fhat he hadgood causg leav6thebusiness
                             to                                      and                 treyer

requiredttat any oftho pard€s       to
                             continue be activeemployees oder fo retafutoir own€rshipinterost,
                                                       h

Benrardiaeis a full-time r€altorsndhelpcout only very occasionally, is still considered be atrequalone-
                                                                  and                 to

fouth owner.Marie doesnot work d all andis considqedto be an equalone-fourfu
                                                                           owner.

        On oneeveningin F€hruaq/,   Bemardine
                                1996,                    Bunny'sSuporefe. Shefounda slip ofpaper
                                             washelping_in

undera cashregisterwith a seriesofaumbs$ on it Bemardinetestifiedthat in h€r opinio4 rhe nr:mbers,
                                                                                                 which

w€rs a sErie$oftypical groceryitens in suchodd anouub srch as$2.94,$ 14. O and$ l.ld mostlikely roprescnted
                                                                       I

tite$. Sheraasrmable think ofany otherpurposo sucha slip ofpaperotherthantheft- Shetestified fi[ther that
                    to                       for




                 VII.ICENTAIiIEI'6|ERS,.A.   - ArIO|TIEYAT   L,W- Et4 BAY SIFEET- MAI.TCIIEIER. NH (x C)4   000a67
 whoeverwasstealingfrom the cashregister not ringing thoseamounbup wasstealing
                                       by                                     Som the entire &mily,

 i.e., all four parties,andnotjust "Bunny'sSuperettqInc.".

          EdwardBurketestifiedthathis siger gavoXhe to him andhethought oneofthe employees the
                                                  slip                that               was

 thiefand told Ler thathe would put it backandkeepa canera on the r€gistertofind the guilty person. He ftrther

 testified lhat botl he andhis sisteragreed tho slip could only reprcs€ stolenmotr€y.Eduard Burke discussed
                                          that

thc matterwith his brotherThomas nextdayaud,to his surprisgThomas
                               tfie                                     that
                                                                explained the slip was his andsaid

that he had expenses which he needed money. Edr.vard so angrythatbis brotherhadstolenfrom the
                   for             the             was

family that he Ieft thestorethatverymomitr& He testifiedthathe told MarieEu*e atrdthat hor response
                                                                                                  was

                                                     moresasilyrh'n Thomas.@dwardhad,il theprior
suprising: shetold him Sd he couldsbrt anotherbusiness

few monibs,fnancedaudassisted son,JoDaiban, op€ninga marketacross
                            his           h                     tol}n calledJca O's, and Ed'.vard

could work there,Marie sai4) Edwardto$ified thst he told his aoooutrhng Paradis, wsll ashis Iawyerabout
                                                                      Mr.      as

                                hiln
ihe theft, andthe la*yer advised to call the polico. Edwardresdfied hedid not call ths polico because
                                                                   that                             it

v?s a frnily maaerad &at he did not rpanito iqiurc his mother'shealft. Ettwardtestified,in hindsighl that he

shouldhaveasked                     ofleaving fiimsslf,, Iu anysy€nghis opinionis ftat he Ieft only his
               Thomu to lea{e insteaal

employmenl
         behindandnot his osnershipintdesl




         5. CHRONOLOGYT


                                                                                                 to
        The Plaintitrsubnittod a obronologr lte bqinning ofrfiia Trial ar a possible or assistaace the
                                          at                                        aid

                       is
Court A copy ofthe same atbchedto lhis Memoranduufor ease          lte Chronolos' is intsndedto bg
                                                         ofrsGrenos,

an aid in reviewingthosgeverrts documedts
                              arrd                     that   Burkeexert€d
                                        which demonshate Thomas           undueinfluonce over

                              the                                        ofBemardinet
Marie Burke, causing to breach oral agreenentwit[ lte assistance knowledge
                    hsr                                        and

        AII overtacb prior to Jatruary 7, 1999wers consislerlt                  betlveen parties. Marie
                                                             with theoralagr€om€nt     th6

Bu*e testifi€d that shehadlo will priorto Janudy 7, 1999. Accordingly, shediodat anytime prior to January
                                                                     had

7, 1999,shewould bavedied inlestre, her eshe boingdivtdedequallyanongfre threeofrildren. Thc lestimony

indicatedthat aUnssets                   with the orceptiono{thojoint checkinsaccomtof 'teal esate
                     wereitr her solename,

accolnfl, wfrich account              wilh ThomasBrukc but rrhiqhThonasBu*e agreed really trc
                       wasinjoint names                                           was

prop€rtyof Made Bute,




                                                                                                       00006E
                  r/0'tcENTAwEl{!{ERS,-R.-trtORNEYrir   L$V- S4 Brtr ETFEET-rAl{CltESTER, NH €lO4
          Secreryis the hallrnarkoffraud, duress undueinfluenca.Thomas
                                               and                   Br:rkebogarto isolateand influence

 Marie yean before 1999.

                             real
          The RocklandArienue estate 1m WebsterSteet properties
                                   and                        wemsoldin January 1987 and,

 althoughEd'arard oftho opinionthatth8proceeds
                was                          strouldbe distsibuted ttrattimeto all four equally(Made,
                                                                 at

 Ihomas, Edwardand Bemardine), netproi:eeds
                             tho          ofboth sales,in the total approximate
                                                                              amo&t of$150,000,were

 deposited the 'leal esiato
         into              accormf. In 1985or 1986Thomashadtakentlie realestaisaccount his homeand
                                                                                     to

 beganto contol thst account all hisuothds o{heraccoualsaadfruacial aftils. He maintahedthe reale$ate
                           and

 checkingaccountat bis homg ratherthanin theoffice at Bunay's Suporette, hadall ofthe oheckingaccount
                                                                       aud

 stabmeDts catrceled
         and       ciecls rBfimedto hisbome. [Ie changed accord fiod ajoint accoutrt
                                                        the                        with Edpard

                                 wifh Maris Btrke and himsslf, Thsmas
 Bu*e andhimsel{,to ajoint account                                            that
                                                                     testified he alsoreceivedall of

Marie Burke's porfolio shfrmenb fom Morrill-Lpch and prepare.d fnaacial aftirs in a summaryfor her
                                                             her

accountant her annualta.{r6hlrDs.Edward
         for                           Buke no longerhadanyconftolor krowledgeof Marie's financial

aftirs.

           Thonas Budcetestifiedthatevonthoug!theaccountwasjoiutly in his trsme Ma!ie's, he considered
                                                                               ard                   it

to be her accoutrL Ttroughoutthecourseofthc fial the Defendanumademuchofthe frct tharflie real edtale

involvedin this manerard anyporsonal      getrerated the operations
                                   property        by                              and
                                                                  ofthe real estate Bunny's

        werein 6e namoofMarie Burkeaadtherefore, is the "legal owner," The Defsndants
Suporetle                                      she                                  cannothaveit

bothvays: Thomasrtas rct a "legal ovrct'oftbe joint aocomt aslts tu€ ownprship govoned by the oral
                                                                             vas

€re€'me btwe€n fre pmies. Lftowise,the&ct thatthe real eltato andbusiness                uas
                                                                        ofBmny's Superotte al any

time in tLe namesofeither BerDtrdBodMadeBu*e, or at a later timo, in thonameoflvfariq is not oonclusiveon

thequestionofrvho is thetus ouuer ofthe $"ne,

          The preparation andexecttionofthe January.?, 999will atrdTrustworecarofirllyplannedin adrarce,
                         for                         I

shordyafter Edwardleff theslore. Thomas
                                      testifiedthat ia 1997,shortlyafterEdq/ard rhsstore,Fremeau
                                                                              Isff

AppraisalAssociat€o retained appraise ofMarie Brr*o's real eslat€ JobnCtaftsAppraisalAssociates
                  was      to       all                         snd

                      the
wasretahed to appraiso landandbuildingocapied by Bunay's Sqerete, ThonasBu*e r€st'rfiod he
                                                                                       that

                         apptaimls paiil for the sameby ched$ froE thsjoint account hadwith Mario.
recsivedthe bils for Xhese        anrl                                            he

Thomasolso testifiedthattho appaisorswerehiredto producetheappraisals gqaration for the aratrgement
                                                                    iu                            of

Marie Burks's affain. Thoeastostifiedthathedid not ktrow Erhat
                                                             raluostheappraisen placedon the properties
                                                                              had




                                                                                                          000{169
                   UNC€NTAVJEII$GRS, .R. -.trIMlEYAT   LA!V. A4 AAY STFEET- IiIA'.ICI{E9IER, T+T C!'1O4
 aaddeclinedto producecopiesofthe appraisals.
                                            Rlward Burke wasnot nade auaroofthe exislence
                                                                                        ofthe

 appraisals, purposcfor the sarnqor fhe yalues wereplacedon the family propatiesby theappraisers.
           the                               that

  .      On January 7, f999, Marie Bud<e
                                       executed seriesofdocumentsprepared AtfomeyAnsell (l) A will
                                              a                         by

(seePlaintifs &rhibit 4); and(2) a Revocable
                                           Trust(seePlainti{fs Exhilit 1). Please
                                                                                notethatin the clronology

                                           refered to as an hrevocableTrust The will is a pour-overwill into
 suppliedto the Courglhis Tnrstwasincorrecdy

the Marie Burte Revocable
                        Tlust

         On March 22' 1999,Marie conveyed ofher real estat€ th€ Marie Br:rkeRevocable
                                        all                to                       Trust whioh deed

wasrecorded lhe HillsboroughCoutrty
           itr                                                                 Phindtrs Exhibit 5.
                                   Regisry ofD€edsai Volune 6080,PageI 120. S€d,

                in
         Somotime March, 2004,ThonasBurkepropossd Bernardine shegive him hershares
                                                to         that                   ofstock in

Bunny's Supsrelts tharthehmotherdo likewise.Bemardine
                 ard                                 testifiedthat shediscussod proposalwith
                                                                              this

                                       meetings, loew that the gifu wouldgive Thomas
Thomasandwith her mother,perhaps sspamte
                               in              and                                 scvenEr-five

p*rcentcooaol ofth" stockofBunny's Superere,
                                           Inc. Shealso.ruus!        howevu, thathermotherwasnot
                                                            haveknown"

only makingthe samegift ofsloclg but alsowasgoitrgto conveythe land andbuildingin vAich Bumy's Superene

waslocated(a very subshatialvalug eventhoug! EdwardBurte wasnot allowedto testifyto ib value)andthat her

                                                                                   would haveto
rdotherumsto sxec0ieths FiFt Amendmedto &€ Trust,which limibd tho amoutrt BerDardfue
                                                                        that

pay Ttomas for the Lib€lty Steet prop€rfyto $90,000(instBad presr:med martet valueofsonettring in
                                                          ofa       frir

excess $250$00), audretaineitto her lbo residue her mother'sestate
     of                                        of                 consisting theArahSheetpropertyand
                                                                           of

           Streetproperty,eachwith a valueofapproxirnarely
68 Yr'ebsler                                             $250,000aswell astheportfolio offte stocks,

bondsanrlcashofapprorimately$250,000).Bemanline,                                        to
                                                                               ince.ntive sign the
                                               accordinglnhad nearlya $1,000,000
"giff letter' ovor to Thomas. exchange tharThomas
                            The      was        qas to reoeivs75%ofthe storeandthe land and

building on whioh it rvassiftate atrdMariewouldmakethe Ametld|nent lhis Tnst in sucha &shionthat
                                                                 to

Bemardine                        intoreslaswell asgiving to Thomasa 'disoornf' on thepriceat which he
         would retah her residuary

wasto pay to purohase Liberty StEetproporty.Theseconsiderations thequidpro quofor Mario's transferof
                    the                                       are

the stockto Thomas. In this fanily, asMadetestifid farnily andmoneywereaborf"eveosleven'aod Thomas

                                    $1,00O000,00 tholr participationin lhe breach
andBemardineeachreceivedappro<imatoly          for                              ofthe oral

agrBement

        Ou Mrrch 17,2004 the MarieBurkeRevocable            the
                                               Trust convey€d lad andbuildingryon which

                 is      to
Bunny's Suporstta situate thomas Bu*e. the deedis recordedat Volume7187,Page2575
                                                                               ofthe




                                                   L!!V- a4 BAYSTREEr- 'IAI'JCIESIER' NH Gl!o4
                 Vlt'IcENTAWE!$ieR$.R.- AITORI'IEYAI                                             000070
 HillsboroughCounp RegistryofDeeds.

         Bemardine                                                                        '?ift letlefxsee
                  testifiedthat o! or aboutApril 1, 2004 Thomasbroughta letter(theso-called

                                said
 PlaintitrsExhibit 7) to her a-ud tiat sheshoutdsign it. Shetcstifiedthatshehadalreadyagreed do so
                                                                                           to

 Gursuant the d€aloutlinedabovgpresumably) did not lnow vAo prqared the letter.Also, on Aprll 1, 2004,
        to                               and

 Mariesigneda letterto Attomey DavidDum indicatingher intentto give her stockin Bunny'sSuperette, to
                                                                                                I-nc.

Thomas.

                                        the               to                  by
         Four daln l6ter,on Apdl 5, 20114, First Anrendmsnt the Trustwassigned MarieBurke, in

AttorneyAnsell's presence.(SeePlaintiffs Exhibit2).

                                      AfromeyIrmont gne's parher in theDevine& Millimet laq, fmr,
         On April 4, 2004,Aromey Cohed,

calledAttorneyDavid DuDnto teUhis 6d a letlervas coming. (SeePlaintitrs Erhibit 26). .

         On May 4, 2004,an undated
                                 letts wassentftom Thomas                          tequesting&at
                                                         Burke to DavidDur& Esquire,

                                      ofelectirg ThonasBurke asthesoledirectorandfor the adoptionofthe
he call a specialmeetingfor the purpose

                                                                       t*enty-fivo p€rceft sto€jfrolder,
newBy-lawswtrich efectively elimindedanyright or controlby thereanaining

                                                                                            any
Edwad Burke, (SeePlaintiffs E:rhibit?Q. ErfuardEurtc tostifiedthat thofirst time he received notice tlat

                                        by
any ofthe tansfers, armrgemensatrdschemes the Defendan$wereoccuring waswhenAtomey David Dunn

gavehim a oopyofthe coryoraleboolc strdofthe lctter trom Thoma.s.

         On May 6, 2004,AttomeyDavldDrmngavethoPlaintiffa copy of tle corporatebooh aadrocords,as

well asThomas'slotter. (SeePlaintitrs Exhibit26').

                                                                             atr
                                          wroleto Atiomey David Dum reguesting sccountingand
         On May 10, 2004 Plaittiffs counsel

                                 neeting. (SeePlaintiffs Exhibit 25).
regu€sting hs not call the special
         that

                                                  as        of&e oorporation ascoults€lto
         On May 27, 2004, AttomcyDavidDrnn rosigned Secretary              and

                Inc.
Bunny'sSupsretto,

         On June 8, 2{X}4, insaot Petitionfor l4iunctionwasfiled by rhePlaintiff,
                         the

                                     MadeBurke,hadbeenservedad theRetumofssrvice filed wift dle
         On Jme 21, 2004 the DefcndanL

Coult"

                                              the     Ametdmentto theTrusl (See,Defendart,Thomas
         On June 29, 2fi)4, Mario Burkeexecuted Secotrd

Burke's B:rhibit3). In this Amendment, Article 22, Marie Bur*e intentionally
                                    in                                      madeuo pmvisionfor the Plaintifi,

                                                                                                     to
EdwardBurke. This tansfer andanyothort@sfelsmadeafferthe lnsliu.tionofsuit, inoludirg tie araendmolts a




                                                                                                     000071
                                      ..R-JftORtEYAT l4r!r- e4 EIYSREEr-
                  VII{CENTA.$IEI'II\EFS,                                   $At{CllESIESl, NH @to't
        au$, arelikely considered fraudulent
revocable                       as                pursuant theNew Hampshire
                                           bansfers      to                        Transfer
                                                                          Fraudulent

Statutc. (See,RSA $ 545-A:4).

        The PlaintiffEdward Bur*e's share                   until 1999,wasone-fourhofall propenywhich
                                        ofhis mother'sestate,

                                   propexty, orc-fortrtt ofthe business
sheor.medboth real esate andpersonal       and                        ofBunny's Superette, at Marie's
                                                                                         or

                                                                               uw
deatb.a one-thirdshareequallywith Thomas Bemardine. On January 1999,his interest reduced
                                       and                    I                         to

$l0O000, (togetler with tle twenty-fiveperoent                                 Inc,) OnApril 5, 2004,the
                                             stockowrorshipof Bunny's Supcrette,

First Amendmenl the Trustrcduc€d share
              to                his   ftrrhor to 860,000. [Iis onequadershareh Bunny'sSuperere,Inc.,

                                                    psrceDt
would be worth very little in view ofthe severty-fiee     sharsthat hadb€en          to
                                                                           transferred ThomasBurkethlee

dap earlier,on April l, 2004, aswell astte ,meoded                      Thonasrhesoledir€ctor. on
                                                          documensmak.ing
                                                  corporate
                                                                                                         '-ling
                      Amendmeutto Truc madeuo provisionfor the Plsinti4, Edwlld Burte,
June29, 2@4, the S€oond         the                                                                               ftom

                                            oxcept tle questiomblevatueoftwenty-five perceDt
him all ofhis interestin the family property,    for                                       ofthe stock

Not only wasall ofthis propertytakenfron aodt            sferEd sw8ytrom EdwardBurke,but slsowsseffectiyoly

                                                                                            by
                                  ofthe udue influencehe exertedoverMarie. On Septenber 20O1,
plac€din the contol ofThomasbecauso                                                   3,

            ofArticle 7 in the ThirdAmendment theTrust, makingTlomas Burkolhe Thtstes
the Amendmsnt                               to                                       with sole

         over Benrardine's
discre$ion               residuary     Thonasbrd ta&ed
                                  share,              ooDtol ofthe ontireproperryofthe frmily.



        6.IJNDUE INFLIIENCE:

                                                    ofthe 'teal estate
        Prior to 1999,Thonas Burte badtakenpcssession                 account''andMarieBurke's financial

a$airs so complebly asto conbol the'Dr thepenny,solen nouey from Bunay'sMarket (pre$eably ktrowfugthat
                                     io

&lnard's senseofintegrity wassuchthathewouldprobablynof cal thepolice).Tho preparation.for o:<eoution
                                                                                         and

                                                               shortlyafter&lwitd Ieft tbe store. ThoDras
ofthe lanuary 7, 1999wi[ atrdTrustwerocarofirllyplanned advauce,
                                                      in

                            AppraimtAssociates rchircd to appraise of Marie Burke'sreal estate
testifiodthat in 1997,Fremeau                was                 all                          and

                            '.ras
JohaCraffsAppraisatAssociates rshinedto appraire Iand andbuilding occupied Bunny'sSuperete.
                                                the                       by




                                                                                                                  000072
                 I,II.TCf,NTA9JET{..ERS,.R.-,IIORNGTAT     LAW- A4 EAY STREET- MANCI|ESTER.I\III GIO,I
          Thomas    testifiedthai he received bilts for theso
               Bu-1:e                       the              appraisals paid for thesame checksfrom
                                                                      and               by

 thejoint accouot I rd rvith Marie. Thomas
                he                                                    werehired to produce appraisals
                                         alsotestifiedthatthe appmisers                   the       in

 preparation the ar lngement Marie Burke'saffain. Thomas
           for             of                          testifiedlhat he did not krow whatvaluesthe

 appraisers place{ on thepmpertiesanddecliled to produce
          had                                           copiesofthe appraisals.EdwardBurke wasnot

     aware
 m.ade              ;tence
          ofthe e..,'     ofthe appraisals, purpose the same, the valuesthat wereplacedon the family
                                          the     for       or

 propedies theapF risen.
         by

         Sometime Drto January 1999,TtomasBurkebmughtMarie Burke to the Iaw Ofr.cesofDevine,
                1             7,

 Millimet andBranch ) me€t.his                                     to'estale plarmingl,andthen
                             lawyer,AtlorneyOvideLamontagne, respect
                                                          wift

ulnn a referralfrom , uglnsy Irmontagneto At0omey                                     for
                                                Rfih Anselt who oddly enoug! coutinued somenmber

of meetings meetr th Marie Bu*e at theDevine,Millimet larry
          to                                              firnr. thomas Burke andMarie Burke testified

rhatThomas
         droveNl rie to all ofthesevariousappohtnentsat theDovine,Millimet law finn an4 subsequendn
                                                                                                  to

a uunb€r ofappoinh ints at AttorneyAns€ll'soffice in Bedford. Atlomey Arsell wasDol in 1999,and is Dotno%

a member theDel . :, Millimet law finn"
       of

         OnJaluarj ,1999,MarieBulkeexeortedaseriesofdoc,umenbprwaredbyAttomeyArueltO)AWill

(seePtaintiffs Exhi; 4); and(2) a Rsvocable
                                          Trust(sesPlaintiffs Exhibit l). Plsasenotethat in iie chronotogr

suppliedto theCoul                          refenedto asanInuvocableTtusl The will is a pour-ovorwill into
                      bis Tn$t wusircorro€1ly

the Marie Burte Rer ableTnxt).

                                            AtlomoyA$ell's bill for th*e documents 1999andpaid for
             Bu ? testifiedthaths hadr€ceived
        Thomas                                                                   itr

tlre sameAom a cher lrritFn fiom thsjoitrt accormtwhich hadrrith Made Bo*e. Thomas
                                                      he                          Burkedeniedhaving

reedthe will or any c theotherdocumeds,eventhough                                        draftsfor
                                                 AttomeyAnsell testified6at shehadprepared

Marie Brute to revie beforeoomingto h€r office to sign6e same, evonthoughMarie Brnketestifiedthat
                                                             and

thesedooumenB
            wer Dfthet1trethat shewouldnot signwithoutconsultingwith ThomasBurke. Whenaskedasto

       or                                 boforeMariewecutedthem,Marie identifiodspecificallyher
rvhether not Thon' Buke hadreviewedthesarne

will andthe original iarieBur&eRevocable
                                       Trusgon the recbrd ard by erhlblt Eumb€r, astvo of the dosumentt

thatThomasBurte ri ! reviewbeforcshesigned same.Wher shewasaskeda questionregarding
                                          the                                     eachand

everyoneofihe aboi -identifieddocumenb well assubsequent
                                      as              AmetdmenBto OreTrust srd de€ds, was
                                                                                    she

unsuro           t.          oftho documenb to whetler or DotThomas
      with recpect oneor trrqo            as                       Burke had reviewed same,but
                                                                                    the

did testi& thathe rer rzedths orieinal will andTrustIndenture-




                                                                                                  000073
                 vI cENTAtltEl,lt\EnS.3.-AnORNETtrL   W- At BAYSTREET-ltAlEHESrEn, NH GtlO4
          MarieBu*e testifiedthat shereliedon Thomas                             matters would
                                                    Burke for anyimpor&rt business      and

 generally sigtrdocumenb
          not           suchastiese withouthis advisingherto do so, andwould sigtrsuchdocuments
                                                                                              ifhe
 advised to do so, because haclher bestintercsts h6artandshetusted him, Shetestifiedihathe r,uas
        her              he                    at                                              alwavs

 therefor her audthat shehadtotal faith in $hat he told her to do.

          Marie Burkenas askedto ide iry fte documents         as
                                                     notedabove, well astheAmendmsnts the Tnur
                                                                                    o

 Indenture,
          Plahtiffs Exhibits2, 3, Defendant,    Bu*e's Exhibit3. Shewasasked ideutis eachdocurnent
                                           Thomas                           to

 by €xhlbit numb€r or at leastdescribewhatthe document                to
                                                     was. Shewasrmable ident$ any oneoftle

 documents,
          includin& but not limited to, her Will andthe TrustInden re for tholvlsrie Bu*e Revoc€ble
                                                                                                  Trusl,even

 thoughshereviewedeaoh everydocument a longperiodof ting speuding minutesor moreon eachof
                      aad          for                           6ve

 the variousdoormen8.

         It is rmpeoffitllysuggstedto the Trial Courtthat Botorc lawJrer theCourtroomon eitherside ofttis
                                                                       in

 casewouldhaveallowedthe executionofa Will or a pourover Tnr$ by Marie Burkebasedupouher obvious

 inability to und€rstand naturt ofthe docrnncnts shewasreviewingandbecause
                       &e                      that                      ofthe clearandcbvious

 controtlinginfluencewhic,hThomashadoverMaria Marie wouldsignwhatever
                                                                    Thomasaskedherto without

knowing$/halsh€wassigning,andwould decline signwfiatever askedher not to sign.
                                          to           he

         The Defendan!Marie Burke,maynot now behead to saythatshewascomPoteDt lanuary?, 1999
                                                                            on

whensheexocuted will andTnEt Ind€nture, &at shovas not und€rrmdue
              her                     or                         inftuace ofThomasBurke suoh

tut he,r
       actswerenot her oI?D voltmtarya€8. Shewasnot competent execrtesuchdoo{rmenb the dayof
                           and                              to                   on

aial Afiorney Ansellrepr€sEnted the Cout ftat Marie Bur*e was"at her besfl the fiiIstrbing in themqning aDd
                              to

tte Plainti$, BdwardBurke,agreed allow herto testify astheveryfirst witaess themoming. Atlorney Anse[
                                to                                         in

presented evidence lvlarieBurkewasmorecompeteut 1999
        no       that                         itr   thaashswason the day offte tial                Shewas

clcadynot competgltto o<es'ute will andpour-over
                             a                 Trust,andums evetrcomtr
                                                           not       €tentto exeoute tro d€€ds
                                                                                   the

@laintitrs Exhibits I and4), viLich sheuas alsoaskod identi$ andvas unableto do so. Marie Eurtcewasnor
                                                   to

questioned Attomey Arell asto rryiethor uot she.nderstood
         by                           or                wtat th€ doounefla woreon lanuarJr 1999
                                                                                         7,
whenshesigned sane,1ttetfior or not sh6wasabloto readaudmd€rst trd the same January t 999 when
             ihe                                                           on      7,

sheexeculed same AfromeyAnseu'soffice, andwhether not on Jaouaqr 1999,ThomasBwke stiu
          6e    itr                             or             Z,

scertedthe sa$e degre€ofilfluence overher asthai to which strstestifiedh tle Eial ofthh matter.

        AttorseyADselldid not evenaskMade Eute lrfietheror not &e ri/i[ hadbeenrcadto her in Attomey




                                                                                                    000074
                            {SGFS,-F.-FToRNEYtr
                 VII{CENTATTE                        r-A!V-a4 BrV siREEr- MA!.,tCttEEfER Oglof
                                                                                       NH
  Arue['s ofrce andwhetler m no! tIrcpour+ver Trustard the vadourAmendments theTrusthadbeenreadto her
                                                                          to

  in hor office. Clearly,shewasrmable only to identirythe docum€nts
                                     not                          wbile on thewihess stand but alsowas

  unableto readeitherthetitle or the co entsof thesame.AfiomeyAnsell merelyaskedMarie Burkewhether not
                                                                                                 or
  sheandMarie had'teviewed' her will andTrustwhenshecamein the office to signthe same.Theonly other

  rebuthl evidenceoffercdby AttorneyArsell wasto askBemadiue
                                                           Douelsonwhefheror not tfie documents forth
                                                                                              set

  abovoreflectedMarieBurke'sdesirx with respect the disposition
                                              to               ofher estite, without evenidentifyingatwlat

  point in time shewasbeingask€d speqilateon her mother's
                                10                       *desires".

          Bernardine
                   Donelson
                          testifiedthatshehadonly soentbosedocumenb
                                                                  within the lastw€ekor sq but that

               to
 thsy did aPpear reflecther mother'sdesires.On theotherhand,Bernardine
                                                                     testifiedthd shebadneversesnthese

         beforeandhadneverdiscussed her motherthe disposition
 documents                        with                       ofher mother'sestate.Ifshs hadsevel .

         the
 discussed disposition
                     ofher nother's estateprior to thetial date,how couldshepossfulyhavohrovrn whather

 mother'shteitions wercon Jauuaqr 1999witt resp€ct tho disposition
                                T,               to               ofher estatswher sheexecuted Wi[
                                                                                             her

            Trust?
 andRevocable

          Ths Will andTrusthdenu:rearealsointemallytoublesome.The Will nomimtesOmerRoy, a storo

, employoe,astle Execubf, San Buks astheAltemateExecrSor, asthe secoud
                                                        and                             trust8€
                                                                      Altomatea corporate

          by
 desiguaied Bemardine
                    Donslso[ Bug thewill alsoprovidesthat'!ny brctbermayreceivereasonabls
                                                                                        fees' as

 Executor, EdwardBurkeaadMarie BurketestifiedthatMarie's brotheron January 1999,wasFraokKearns.
                                                                          7,

 This relotivelyminorportionof tho will is nsvertheless
                                                      signific€al It indicates Marie neverread6e wi|! m if
                                                                             thal

 shercad it did not under$and or ifsomeonehadroadit to h€r thatleiher 6e porsonreadingit to her, nor Marie
                            i!

 Bullo' undersiood will, It Sould alsob€ notedihat Mado Burks mishkenlysignedrher+ill in the first insbnco,
                 tle

 by mistakg in the space asidsfor trs dateandwaspresrmablyinstuited to c.ross ttat signatre andsigl on
                       sst                                                  out

 the corresiline' Finally,thsrcwasa provisionthatr.pona coniestoftlre vilL the personco,ntesting,ryould
                                                                                                     r€ceiw no

 prop€rry.
         On Jaouary 1999,Edtffard
                   7,            Brdcehadno knowledgo sucha will hadbeenexecuted.TherowcreDo
                                                    that

 eventswithin the hmily thai$ould suggest the agreeurent
                                        thai.         among particswhich hadexistod nearlyfifty
                                                           tle                     for

yearswosaboutto be breached tto oxeardon
                          by            ofthis wi[ eventSougb                             lbree
                                                             Edwardhadleft Bunny'sSuperetls
yearspreviously,afterThomas beencaughtstealirg. Thomas Bernardine
                          bad                         and       Donelsondenylnowing ofthe

existenceofthe will or ofte cont€n6ofthe will. Thomas                  ofhis Eother's life audtotally
                                                    hew ail o$€r asp€cts




                                                                                                   00007s
                  V$'ICENTATE }€RS..R.-Jq-TGNEYIq'TAfo- S EAYS'RET-    MAAICHE5IER GrtO4
                                                                                  lq{
 conaolledher financialaffairsto thepoint of driving her to andfrom her variousappoiafnentsin preparation the
                                                                                                        for

executionofthe Will andTrust andultimatelyreceivingandpayingthebill for the same. He reviewedtheIVill

beforeMarie executed andpaid for the Will, Bemadino testifiedthatshehadnot sesnttre Will andTnst until a
                   it

weekprior to the Trial. The only personwho would havereason fesra will contestandto haverequested
                                                          to                                    the

insertionofsuch a provisionin the Will atd Trust Ind€ntlre wasThomas
                                                                   B&fte.

           Marie Eurke's*ill providedrhather assets                                      Trust, the
                                                  pouredover inlo tho MarieBurte Rovocable

Indenhue which wasalsoexesrded January 1999. The Trustprovidegin Article 7(i), that ifThomas
        for                  ou      7,

survives, of Mario'sstockin Bmny's Superette the real estate whichit is sitrtate(Iax Map 35, Lob 28
        all                                and              on

and29) are left to Thomas.It is higbly unlikely thal Mariewasableto find theTax Map audlot Dumbers the
                                                                                                 for

landandbuildings. It is far morelikoly that lftsrnaq plovid€dihat bfolmatior to AttorDeyAruell lnowing thatfre

stockandthe land andbuildingFw€{Bto be left to him in the TrustIndentur€.It is also far nore likely thannot that

he hadrsquested mofter to makesucLa provisionaadusedhis fufluence persuade to do so.
              his                                               to       her

                                         that Thomas ao optionto hry the propertyon Libqty Streetat a price
        In Adicle 7(ii), &e Trus'tprovides         has

                                                                              ofBumys $p€rette because
to b€ setby the Trustee.The Lib€rty Steet propcrtyis importantto ihe op€rations                      not

only do€sit abutthe siorebut itr reoryardprovidesspace which Bunny'sSup€rBtte placea fumpsterfor its
                                                     in                     msy

gartage,

        The Tnrst fintherprovidesthatifThomas doesnot exffcisethe optio4 the Trusieemaysellthe Uberty

St€st prop€rtyto anyp€rso!exceptto Marie's sons,Thomas Ednnrd This provision,vhich maywell not be
                                                     and

          cefiaiDlysrggests someone oxraordinarilyangrywith od spitefirl ofEdward in providingthat
eDforceable,              that    is

ho cannotevenbrrya piecoofpropeity ior morethanfrir marketvalue. It is far more likely thatTlonas placed

sucha provision in theTrustfton lfaie by [er orm indepeadont
                                                          decirion

        Likewiso,Article (iv) leaves       to
                                   8100,000 EdvmrdBuI&e,in tusl howevsr,wi& the Trustee distibute
                                                                                      to

only 6o incomoto him. At Edward'sdealh,the $100,000 to be left equallyto CarolynMartindale(Edward's
                                                  is

        and            @anardine'sdaughtst. Nothitrgis lcffio EduErd'ssor,Iona$an, but it is mols
daugbter) Mario Donelson

                                                     Martindale.Marie Burkq urhohadbeencareftlly
                          Burkesrppliedthe nameCaml5ro
likely fran not that Thomas

rehearsed the question CourLwasasked namehor grandchiklre'n the witnessstaad Shelflasableto
        for          in             to                    on

                                                             forgotone ofthe grandchildre4(Thomas'
namemany ofthem by thoir ftst ram€s,b$ noneby ttreirlastnames,

daughter                      pafsy),andgavelo indicationlhat shewould baveknom thatCaml5n'srnauied
       Pasicia $fio hascerebral




                                                                                                       000076
                   VINCENTA$rEI$GRg-R, -r{-lEFNFlArLpW-   a4 EAYsrFEEt- MAt'lC}lE TER,}lll Gtto/l
 namewasMartindale.In fact, shetestifed that slredid not know Edwarcl's
                                                                      childrenor his grandchildrcn.AIso,

 leavingEdwardthe incomeoniy on the $100,000
                                           bequest a frirly sopbisticated in the facefor the yearsof
                                                 is                     slap

 wodc,time andeffort he expended behalfofthe frmily enterprise,
                               on                             pursuant thefsmily's verbalagre€menl
                                                                     to

 Agai4 it is far morelikely thatthis provisionwasinserted theTrustby Thomas
                                                         into             Burk6,who app€ared
                                                                                           to

 demonstrate moreyindictiver$ss
           fir                 towards
                                     &lward thandid Marie.

         Finally, Article 7(v) leavsstherestandresidue                      Donelson.This residualbequest
                                                      ofthe estate Bernardine
                                                                 to

                                value. Marie Burke'sportfolio ofstocksandbondsapproximates
 or distibtttion is ofsubstantial                                                        $250,000.In

 additio4 shealsoovns propqty at AIah St€eq Lib€rrySaeeLand68 Webster     eachofwhioh would
                                                                    Street,

              be
 conservatively valuedat S250,000.AlthoughEdwardBurkewasnot allowedto testiry asto the hir rnarketvalue

 ofthese properties, Courtmaytakejudicial noticethal lhey are ofsomesignificat valueandtlat rhi! residual
                   the

      id
bequ€st €ndofilselfis worth approximatelli                                                ofthe
                                                                      lolew ofthe subs{ance
                                                  IfBernardineDonelsotr
                                        S1,000,000.

provisionsofher mother'sTtust,thensheknewofthis provisionasearlyas I 999. Her astionstlereafter, mustbo

                                 that                benefciaryofh€r molher'sestaieandthat hor mother's
revierrcd in light ofhor knowledge shewasa substautial

financial aftirs weretotally conbolledby her brother,Thomas, thatin ordorto maintainthe subsbtrtialbequest
                                                           and

to her, shewouldhaveto appease
                             Thomas accede his requests the future.Morsover,if Bemidiae hasbesn
                                  nd     to           in

allocatedpropertyworth $ 1,000,000,00, canbe surethatthe landandbuildingon which Bmny's is situatsand
                                    we

stock in Bunny'sis r+orttrai least$ 1,0fr1.000.00.

        The original 1999ThtS Iadeffitre alsoprovidesin Article 7, Section that ifThonas doasnot survive
                                                                          B(i)

Marie, lie slockiu BuDny'sSupqetieed tle landandbuildings,is to bo soldtd anyp€rsonexceptto her son,

&luard Sucha pmvisionwould only beonwitten by Thomas                    u/holvascaugbtstsalingths
                                                    Burke, It \ras Thomas

                        by
money&om Bunny'sSuperotle Edwurdaud&e only person                  ofguoh vindictiveness.Marie
                                                 who wouldbe capablo

                      to
and Bcmardine no reason exclude
             had               Ednardtrom lhe storcin theeveotthatThomas        In
                                                                        deceased, fact, Made

               eveuaslaie as 1999,to b€ dopendent tho incone received
Burte contiuuad,                                on                  from therentals,ald tom Bumy's

Sup€rotto, vell asths othsrreal e$ate. Th$ incomopaid all ofher eryenses.A saleofthe marketto ftird panies
         as

                  reduce family income.Granted thepmvisionsofArticls 7B would not be effectivemtil
would subs&tntially     the                   ttat

first Tbomas lhen secou4Marie diod,theTrustmakes provi$onsfor whatwould be donoin the interim
            and                                 m

              deathandMarie's tleadl lhe only logicalpenon to cofiinue ruoningBuony's Superetle io
bstw€enThoxoas'                                                                                and

generate incoltreneeded the &nily wasEdnard"
       thc            by




                                                                                                             000{n7
                  Vll'lCEl{TAll\Eh6CRg   -R.- ArIORNEYAr Ltft-A4   BAY giIREEI-   lilANO€;IEn,   a*l G|lO4
             IfEdwprd rrould havebsentold aboutthe provisions
                                                            ofArticle 78, he moretikely tha'rnot woilld trothave

 returnedto conlinuenmningthe storeifrhomas diedbecause nould havebeenthe loyal thing to do.
                                                      it

 Accordingly,Ihomaq MarieandBemardinenevertold Edwardthatsucha provisioncxisted lfThomas died,

 Edwardwould coutilue his loyaltyto the family andreturnio run Burury'sSuperefte, theadvantage
                                                                                to           ofthe entire

 farnily.

             Article III ofSeotionB ofArticle ? ofthe Trustprovides ifTiomas predeceased
                                                                   that                Marie, the restand

 residuewasto bs dividedin rhreeequalshares,
                                           Edward'sshare beheld in trustwith the incomeonly payable
                                                        to                                         to
 hinr. Agail, this provisionap;nars havebeenonethatThomas
                                   to                                     ratherthanMarie.
                                                        wouldhaverequested,

            On March22, 1999,Marieconveyed ofherreal eshteto the Marie BurkeRcvocable
                                         atl                                         Trusg wh.ichdeed
 wesrscordedin the HiilsboroughCountyRogishyofDeedsat Volume6080,Page1120. See,Plaintiffs Ex&ibit5.

 on March 17,2004'theMarie BurkeRevocable
                                        Trustconveyed landandbuildinguponwhibhBrmny's
                                                    the

         is
 Superette siuate to Thomas
                          Burke. The deedis recorded Volune ?l t7, Page
                                                   at                  2575 ofthe HillsboroughCounty

Registy ofDeeds.

            Thomas
                 Eurketealifiedfirst xhathe hadrcver seen d€ed
                                                         ft€  l       (el4 thenrhatMarie Burkehad told hitrr

aboutit, atrdthe'nlaterthal he hadseon deed. Therereallywasuo reasou Marie to haveconveyed land
                                      the                           for                   the
andbuilditrgsto Thomas.Shehadbreached oral agreetaed executing Will md ThrstIndetrtrrre. had
                                    the            by        the                       She

        !o          the
PurPorted leavoThomas Prop€rlyin the Trustandhewasalsoleft her s.bares
                                                                     ofstock in Bumy's Superehe,

Inc. the ontyplausibleerplamtionfor this deed,andtheseriesofeve[ts that fotlow€4 rras so ftat Thomascould

havetotal dircct cotrtrolovertheftmily's propertyduinghis lifetine, ratherthanthe fudirectcontol he had

previowly exorcised inf,uencing
                  by          Mario. hior to March 17,2004,he conholledewry aspect Marie's life.
                                                                                 of

Apparently contol'ryas longor
         this        no     suficiengor hews concernod hercompetenco
                                                    tlat          mlgr,16s
                                                                         questione4
                                                                                  an6
hs deci&dto €xert    oontoloverth€various
                direct                  familyproperties.

                      sonetime Marcb2004,
            Accordingln      in                                    that givehim hershares
                                             Bute proposed Bemardine she
                                        Thomas           to

ofstockiDBunny's      atrd
               Superett€ ibatthsbmother likewise.
                                      do        Bcrnsrdine       ir'at discussed proposal
                                                         testifi€d she         this
withlhomasand             putapsin separate
             witl hcrmother,                    and                     give
                                         m€€tings, tuewthatthegiffswoulcl Thomas
          p€rc€d
seveng-fivs     oontolofthestockofBunny'sSuperetto, iJemardine
                                                 Inc.                that discussed
                                                             tostified she        this
proposal rhomas withhermother,
       with   and            perhaps seprate
                                   in      meuings, knen, fte gifo wouldgive
                                                  and   tlat
Thomas          psroont
     ssventy-fiv€     coDtolofthe stockofBumy'sSup€r€ttp, Sho musthavs
                                                       Inc.  also           however,
                                                                      knowrl,




                    rn}rE.ITAWE!.$ERS,.R -AnbRNEYE   I.A!V-a4 BAyStREtr- MANc}iEsrtER.NH @tO4
 that her motherwasnot.onlyrnaking ssmegifr ofstock, but alsowasgoingto convoy landandbuilding in
                                  the                                         tbe

 which Buryry'sSupsletewaslocated(a very substatrtial
                                                    value,eventhoughEdwardBurkewasnot a.llowedto

                                                                  to
 testify to its value)andthathermothernmsto execute First Amendment theTrust,which limited the anount
                                                  the

                                                                        (insteadofa presumed
 that Bemardinewould haveto payThomas the Liberty Steet propenyto $90,000
                                    for                                                    fair

 ma*et v4lueofsomethingin exoess                                     ofhar mother\ estateconsisiing
                               of$254000), andretainedto hertheresidue

 ofthe Arah Steei propartyard 68 lfebster St€et property,€achlvith a valueofapproximately$250,000aswell as

 fire portrolio ofthe stocks,                                                        had
                                        ofapproximately$250,000).Bomardinqaocor<tingly, nearlya
                            bondsandce.sh

 S1,000,000incentive signthe .gift leaef over to lhomas. Tho exchange tbatThomasr+zs receive75%of
                    to                                              r4as            to

lhe stock in the corporation the lard andbuilding on rriich the storewassituate Mffie wouldmakethe
                           and                                                 and

Amendmgnt this Tnrstin sucha &shion&at Bernardino
        to                                       wouldrotainher resi&ary inte'res1, well as giving to
                                                                                 as

Thomasa "discouot''onthepric8 aivrhich he wasto pay to purchase LiUaty Sfrmt pmperty. These
                                                              the

consideratious lhe quid pro quofor Marie'straufer ofthe stock!o thomas. In this family, asMade tes-tifieq
             are

family aadmouoywereabod "evenSteven'and ThomasandBernardine
                                                          eachreccivedapproximately

$ 1,000,000.00 their participation thebreachofthe oral agreoinent
             for                 in

                 tostificdtht on or aboutApril 1,20M, Thomas
        Bernardine                                                       (the
                                                           brouglt a lenen so-called'gm bthCxs€e

Plaintifs Bxhibit 20) to he'rold saidthatsheshouldsign lL Shetestifiedthatshehadalreadyagt€sdto do so and

                                                                                          a
did not loow who prepared les€r,atrdon April l, 2004,(seePlaintiffs Exhibit7) Merie signed nearly identical
                        the

lefier giviDgh€r twent}l.flveporcerfsharcs thomas Bu*e.
                                         to

                                                                                by
        Four dayslater,on April 5. 2004,thb First Amendeentto theTrusf. assigned lvladeBwte. Clearly

this Amondment boondiso:ssed and@otrg Marie, Thomas Bomariline
             had           by                      and        wlen h wasdecialed hq
                                                                               ftst

Trust would degdtherealestate qlhichBEry's SuperBtls situats!o Thomas,
                            on                     was               Iather tha! leavingit to him in

&e wiU and Tru$ arMarie'sdoath,atrdamondiq Article 7 B to providethd thonas had an optionto puc,hase

                                                                                   ratfio thaaanyonoelse,
                              priceof$90,000. Agaiq it is far morelikely thatThomas,
Liberty Streetal the disoounted

requested inserted pmvisionfor a discounted
        and      the                             pricofor lJberg Streetsincehe vould bs lle sole
                                          purehase

                             pdcs.
beneficiaryofsuch a discounled

        Adicle 7 C wasam€nded providethat the bequest &livard Bu*e wasreducedfron $100,000to
                            to                      to

$60,000an4 asaboveindicated, Article 7 D tho teidue iras left to Benrardine. this poin! EdwardBurke was
                           in                                              At

still oally rmaware aay6iaghaschangod
                  that                                                     whichbe undorstood
                                    vr'h res@ to tte long-stafldiryagreoment                 was




                                                                                                000079
                 VIi{CE}TfAWE!.IhEREJC.-AT'ORNEYATLAW- A4 EAY6'REET- IAT€fETER   NH G'IO4
still in effect.

          Bemardine                                                                1996' By
                   testified thomas hadctolenmoneyfiom the ontirefanily in February'
                            that

                                   olse.
September 2004,hehadstoleneverything
        3,




          7. TIIE STOCK SAI,E RESTRICTION DOES NOT ALLOW A GItrT OF ST(rcK:
                                                                                                    Inc.
                                                   restriotingthe saleofthe stockin Bmny's Superetto,
                          with respect the agreernent
          Marie's testimony          io

                                                                                       Edward Buke had
wasthat its intentaas to plsvenlan outiidetiird party from becoming ownerofthe business.
                                                                   an

t€stifiedthat the agreement not specificatly
                         did                address issueof a gift ofihe stock,that it wasno! attended
                                                  the                                                 to

                                                   fiom    "gangingup" ot one'andwasinlended preveDt
                                                                                            to     ihs
address issug it rflasto preventftrse family members
      the

saleto aa outsidepenon Thebusiness                continued be ownedby all four equally, evenafferits
                                 ofBmny's Superefte        to

l97l inoorporation Thercshictionson the saleoftho stockweredesigned prevent only a third Party from
                                                                  to      not

                                                                       threepartiestom 'langing up" on
                                                 Burketestifid m prevent
enteringinto the family brlslness; atso,asEd',nard
                                 but

a fourth party,ashashappened the case bar.
                           in        A

          The agreement silert with resp€c{ whefr€r or trot the stockmaybe gifted Thepurpose
                      is                  to                                                ofthe stsucExe

ofthe corporation4 howwer,clearthateachoflho partiesare to owa a one-forfihshare.Ifa gift is p€rmitte4 it

                                        pattisscontinue b€ oqualovners,i.e., one-third one{alf ownersas
mustbe in sucha frshiouftat the.remaining              to                             or

                                                     wereto makegifu oftheir stoch IDany event,therevras
the casemaybs ifeiherlvlarie, or Melie atrdBernardine,

       consideration fto "gifis" oftho stockby IvlarieandBenaldine to Thomss re$ire a fiIrdirlg frat the
adequate           for                                                      to

raasfer was,in fao! a saleatrtlsubje€t thor€quirm€nt dut the stockfirst be offercdto fre corporation Ifthe
                                     to

stock ha6bsenofferedto the corporation, require4 or a gift hadbeenmade Thomas Ed'iard aswasalso
                                      as                              to     and

                   aort                                       mthorlbm &e claimedsewnty-five
                                             ownersofthe stoc.k
                          woulct ffty perce,nt
requircd,thenEctward Thomas    be

psrc€stitwenty-fiye       o{'nershipclaimed the Defendans.
                   porc€'nt                by




          8. COI'NTERCI,AIM:


                                     E:rhibitI wasthe last exhibit ofthe tial. AttorneyNormandproFeredthe
          Defedant, Bumy's Superette's,

                                                                                       represetrodto
                                                                     fedoralrate.Oormsel
sameasthe amountdueby lhe Plaintifr,wi& imputedint€s€st ths applicable
                                                      at

tha court that he wouldveri$ themtoandeitho objeotor consent the.ndhemaics.Therde is prop€,rly
                                                           to




                                                                                                      000080
                                         - ATDnNEYAT risv - a4 BAYETREET-MAIJd€1EE
                   VI!.|CENIAiTE!0\GRS..JFt.                                         tl*| GlOl
          ald                                    ofthe exlibil
 caloulated &ere is no obje.tion to the adrnission

                                  that
         The Plaintiffdo€snot agree heowcs$35/07.87,hwrcver..HetestifiedthatsinceI97t, when the

corporatiouwas formed,he andThomas
                                 took equalsalarieseachyearandwould alsotakeequalanounts thoughout

                    "draf' or "loansto officef. He filI ler testifiedthat in everysingleyeartheywould repay
theyear as"advanccs",

tlc loanor draw from theprofits oftho corporstion ths endofthe fiscalyear.Ihe mrporationnow,and since
                                                 at

                                                             accountant unible to confinn or cleny
 1971,hashad a June306fiscalyear.MauriceRaymond, corporation's
                                               rhe                    was

                 praotice
this long-standing              by
                        described thePlaint'rff Mr. Raymond     takenoverasits accounbrt a few
                                                          hadJust

rronthsbeforethe tax rohnnfor &e yearendedJuno30, 1995riEsprepared. orderto onttr the amountofatry
                                                                  In

                                                                         Mr,
                                                    ofthe prior accountant Paradise.
adrnnoes drawsby Thorrasor Edward took &e work papers
       or                        he                                                The

Plaintif testified that tlro tax rstum for theyeareacled                               E:rhibitB, couldhave
                                                                    Buflly's Sup€rete's,
                                                       1994,Defendant,

beeusignodoither by him or Thomas.

                                                 the        cross-examined abod the 1994tax re!.rn'
      In an attemptto refutethePlaintifs testimony Defendants            hiln

Schedule Columnft) whichshows
       L,                    loansto stocl$olderson 7/1194 $69371 andon 6/30D5as$62,763.The
                                                         as

Plaintifftestified he did not rc.call 1994 retur4 andstrck to his memoryrhateact y€ar'sPmfitssfuce
                                    the   tax

l97lwere usedto pay anysuchloam. TheDefendants not produce tax returnexc€pt onefor ths ysar
                                             did          any             the

1994.Also, it shouldbenot€dtfiat Def€nda4 &My's Srrperetlel Dxhibftsa aDdH.do showpEmmts by the

                                                                    on      Liker{ise,afterlhe fiscal year
Plaintifto tle corporaionfor this loanaftsr 7i l/94, to wit $2,076,13 5/1195,

closedon 6/30/95,the Pliintiffis showtr havepaid$7,735.00
                                      to                 on78ll95.

                                                           werealqay8suchthattheseloals weropaid in full by
        The Plaintifftestified lhat profih ofthe corporation

                                                                                Affa
                                                                        euEe,nses, he left in F6nary,
thosnd of tlo fiscal year,if necesxryeilherby accelentingiDcome defe.ning
                                                              or

1996he wasno longerin possession                                                            Bxhibit B,
                               ofthe bools, The 1994tax retut4 Defedda$,Butrtry'sSuperotte's,

i5 'nsignedby eitha {heaccomtant the corporationIt probablylt?s not dle tmtil OctobsrI 5, 1995and nay havc
                               or

beonlate. In ary evenl Thomss                                 bools andmoneyandcouldohoose
                             Burkebtd mntol oflle corporation's                           to

declareprofits andpaytfieseloansoffor nol ashe ohose.

        The plaintiffs posidonis thathe owesthe corporation                                  monoyto
                                                          notling. Thereshouldhavebeenad€quato

payfte loans in ftll throughout year 1995/1996 cerainly, by Juue30, 1996afterhohadleft, Not otrly
                              the            and,

                                  profib to paythesame the ordinarycorine,it wasnot paying Ednzrd's
would &e corporationhavehadadequats                   in



                                                                                                     000081
                                    -R.- AtIOR]FrAf, l-AW- 84 Brf SIREET- l,lAl'lC+lEgIER NH GlOt
                  V||{CENiAS/E!.6GRS,
salaryandcould haveallocated       towards loan.At the verymost,thePlairdiffshouldowe no morethan
                           thosesums      the

                                       (7/l2tbs of$36,566.45).He hadworked7 months
7/l2ths ofthe amountclaimedor $21,330.43                                          ofthe liscal yearand

at least7/lzths oftte profit shouldhavobeen andappliedto the loan.
                                           his




II.   coNcLUsIoNSoF I"AW:

                    hereinincorporates
        The argr.ment                someoftho Requests Rulingsoftaw filed with theCourt at the
                                                      for

 beginningofthe Trial.



         I. ENFORCEABII.ITY OF ORAL AGREEMENIS TO IIOI,D OR TEAVE PROPERI"I:

           Oral agreements     parents childrento hold propertytl a cetaiDmatrner to leavean €stale
                         botween     and                                        or

trochildrgnin sucha rnanner not unusual New Hampshirejuris?rud€oce. TsiaBiosv. Eiatsios. 140N.IL
                          is          in                         See,
                                                                                                     '\fiills
l73 (1995)and&kalsha&t                                      wi6 rheSbtutoofFrsuds or Stanrteof
                               120N.H. 780(I9E0). C,oupliance                                                   is

not requiredin orderto etrforce$rchanagreenetrLSee,Folev v. Elliot HosDital98 NJ{. 1860953)1Bovle v.

                                                                               part
Dudlev:8? NJL 282 (1935). Th€ grounds €nforoing contractincturleflll porfomrancq performauce,
                                    for        a

          reliancg quantunmeruit,ftau4 tmduoinfluence, o{ier equihbleconsideratio6s.
detrimental                                          and

                                       onlly promisedto bequeaih falm asdmotelto
             In EbEio& supr4 drgdec€dent                       a
                                                                                                 '
his childrenin exchango their pmmise provltlesorvic€s him wifiout monetary
                      for           to              to                               The ohildren
                                                                         conPeosation.

perfornedtheir part ofthe bargain a goodpa$ oftheir lives,workinghardfrom a youngageandforegoinguany
                                 for

youbftl a*ivlties. Ihe decedent                                    ofthe real eshteto the childt€Din
                              oftenrepeated promisorcgarding bequest
                                          hls               his

excsange their services.After his rrife died,the dec€dedhircd a housekeeper execnted will Ieaviagthe
       for                                                               md        a

prop€rtyto his femalehousekeeper. jury fornd that the decedent nade ao onl pmmiseto bsquealh
                               The                           had                            his

eshrte his childrctrin retumfor their contribution the ftEily finatrcss.Thc ltial Coud heldthat although
     to                                          to

ordinarily oral ooahacts devise propeltyascollpsDsatiotr personal
                       to      real                    for             aro
                                                                scrvices lmerforc€ableunderthe

                                                                    some       fa*s, suchas fi8[4 part
Statue ofFraucls(soeRSA 506:l), it drres frll within fte StatutQ-n/hen oporating
                                       not

          or             considerations, pre€€rL Seq Eamv. Goodrictr.3T
performance otherequitable            aro                              NJI. t85 0858),8d&!9

              6sr|-
v. Massachusetts HousinF                                                            ofthc services
                        Com.. I l? N.If 428 (197?). The Courtheldthal lhe perfonnanco




                                                                                                  000082
                  vl}NcENTArNElf\Gns,..h.- ArtoFNEl,Ar LlgY- a4 E4YsrREEr- HAI.EHESTER, cEllo4
                                                                                      NH
 wassubstantial it q,asnot necessary the childrenprovidetheservices rmtil the dayoftheir father'sdeath.
              and                  that                           up

                      working for his fatherwhenhe wasveryyomg andhewasneveridle. Theagreement
 The old€€tchild begatr                                                                      vas

 the philosophyrmderwhich thefrmily nn andthe decedent               'hll
                                                     repeated promise the time". This evidence,
                                                            his

 whiohis remar*ablysimilarto that in the case bar,*as heldby lhe Supreme
                                             at                                       the
                                                                       Courtto sanction €xistenceofa

                        and
 valid offer, accoptaacq considea:alion.

         Knox v, Perkins.86 N.H. 66 (1932)corsidered              madeby aodbetrveea parentandtwo
                                                    verbalagreements               the

                                at
 fosterchiltlren. As in the case bar;tle agreeBent trot limited to speoificproperly,but to thetotal assets
                                                 was                                                     of

 the eshteon the theoryrt.rat
                            tlere wasa valid andenforceable      betweon motherandthestep-son
                                                          oontrast     the                  to

 refrain ftom at0ering                      by                                  wouldtrke the caseout of
                     their wills. Performance themotherofher part ofthe agreetnent

ttre StatuteofFrauds, See,Soufuem Kittredee,84 NJ{. 307. Likewise,the Statute
                                 v.                                          ofwills vould not be

                                             dispositiotr property. Seg mite v, Winchqster. Md 5I 8.
violatedfor suoha contractis not a testamentary         of                                124

         The Plaintiffhas subsantiallyperformed agreement workingbr yean andMarieBurte breached
                                              the       by                                    the

                                                                 beforeher deatb-
rgresment ffi.sferring nealy all of herprcperty!o the Defttrdatrts
        by

                                      botween BernanlBmte andMarieBurke,andtheir cbildren,wasthat
         In the caseat bar,fhe agreement    Mr,

all tbresofthe ohildreuwouldbe teated equallywith resp€ct their par€nts'estate.This agreement
                                                        to                                 was

           until 199, by t€aliry thepmpertyasequallyo,,med
implemented,                                              duringMarie Burte's lifetimeandat her death

by Mn, Bwke dying inteshleor otherwise
                                     dividingher ostaloequallyamong chil&en It v?s oDIyin I 999lhat
                                                                   her

Marie Burko acnrallyot antioipatorilybreached agreem€nt,
                                            the             ofthe undueiufluenceofThomasBurke,
                                                      b€cause

atrdexeout€d will, Trust alal d8ods, violatiouofthe agreened,
           a                       in

                                                             asidetansfersby dee4 or Trusq or
        This courthasthc authorityto eoforce agregment seeting
                                            an       by

                                                                    and
modi$bg suchinstumsrrs, andorderhg specificperfornanceofthe agreement, oftsnrise o<ercisingall

       which it has in eguity,upona showing &e partiesexecuted
rsmedies                                   that                  ofconveya:rco,
                                                             deeds            fusts, or other

         due                            deceitor misropresentatioa Durkin v. Dnkin f 19N.H,4l
agre€ments io fiau{ duresqundusinflusnce,                        See

(1971). The court maygrantreformatioD proporcases
                                    itr                            (in
                                                wheretfie insburnent thir case, d€sdfrom Made
                                                                              $s

                                          Burke,aswell astheporn-over
Bu*e to tbe Tlust alrdthentheTrustto Thomas                                                    to
                                                                    tust andthevariousameadments

lho Trust) toito 1s6xpr€ss ini€Nionj tlat &e padee hadin naking rte oriqinalagreernent keat all meD$ersof
                         the                                                        to

tho fr.nily equally. Se€,Erin FoodS€rvs..Irc,v.68E Props,.119N"If 232 (1979);Gaqon v. Pronovosl 97 N,Il

s8(l9sl).



                                                                                                       000083
                 vlNcENfAg|Ef.f..ERS,   !Ft- AITmNEYA'LAST-   94 Bt   SIREE   - MANeIBTER.   NH @lO4
          2" UNDUE INFLIJENCE:



         The Defetrdad,ThomasBurkc,undulyinfluenced Defendar4Marie Burkg andto execute will and
                                                  the                                her

Ttust in 1999,andto convsyreal estalB Thomas
                                    to     Burkein 2004,andthese        shouldbesotaside.
                                                                transfers

         ILEdCerlfddCgdy,          73 N.H. 407(1905),the Suprgme                    il      tiat
                                                               Couri heldthatwheuover appears theDouor

$as dopendedupotror underth€ controlofthe Donee,andthatthe Doneetook an activepart in procuringthegift, it

maybe inferredthat thegift wasprooured undueinfluence.Il Edeerlv.it couldbe fiuther foundthat the Donm
                                     by

wastheconfideDtial                                                 affairs,andrhatshewasdepended
                 advisoroffhe Te$atk with r€sp€ot all ofher hrsiness
                                                to

uponhin ad subjectto his conhol ln suchmattoNandthather conditionwassuchtl"t showashardlycapable
                                                                                               of

forraingnew ideasbut couldbe easilyinfluonoed tlo ashe wishedatrdthatfte Donee
                                            to                                          !o
                                                                              wls anxious haveher

makea will in his favor andtook her to I sctiveuer            who executed will giving hin sttbstattiallyall
                                                 ofhis choosing          a

ofthe property.Marie Burkenas dependent ThomalBurts andsubjectto bis codtol anduas easilyinBuenced
                                     on
                 'IhrsL
to makea will,            anddeedin his bvor.

         In Curticev. Dixon 74NJI3E6 (1907),theNew llampshireSupr€m€             the
                                                                   Courtconsidered eleeentsof

undueinlluencsin determining                                                                      by
                           whetter or trot to setasideor compeltherestiution ofproperty transferred one

party to his nieceuponthegrormds
                               ofundueinfluence.The evidsnce thatthetransferor oigbty-eightyeers
                                                            was              $Es

old whenthe cotrtractnas nade atrdthatftere woroothernephervs nieces
                                                            and    who hadbeentreatedequallyin his

                                               Courtheldthat&s Trial Courtproperlyinquiredasto \r,h€fher
wi[ prior to the transferin question"The Suprema                                                       or

not tre tanmction wasuqiut snd uroasouable, thatthat finding would baevidencs to not oDlymeDtal
                                          aud                                as

                                                             ofhis pmpe(tyashs sav fil bm if&e
compelonce asto undueinflu€ooe.Thedeced€nt theright to dispose
         but                             had

dbpositionwasunreasoDable mjust or nat0rallyto be e:pect€d,it nay be considered svidoncs undue
                       or                                                     as        of

ioflu€flros.

         Tho ilispositionofMario Bu*e's esatepmposgd herwill revocable
                                                   by                                 ihoreto,and
                                                                     bust andam€ndmetrts

the two deeds, unreasonablo udust in yisw ofthe agreedeut
             is           and                           Eaite by thepaties audthe adheren€e lhe
                                                                                          io

same manyyearsprior io l99g.
    for

               "undueiqfluerce
                             utich will avoid will is defined thechrgeto thejwy repottdin Whl*nan
                                             a              h                                   v,
               Morey,63N.lL M8,453,q/hich ftr asthen is.sue approved lhatcaso is abmdantly
                                           so           in    rvas        in       and
               swained theau6orftles Jar.
                      by               I    Wills(5th €d,) l3l,noteB;,tna/,v.Snall,4G,ree.720is.
                                                       Am" r'.
               c, 16An Dec.257, l.otr;Conleyv.Nailor, U, S. 127, Mackallv.
                                                      t18         135.                     U.
                                                                               Mackail,l35 S.167,



                    VII{CENTA"S/EI{!ERS,.F.-AITORNSfArt.'Sr- e,t aAYSIREET- I'iA,{FGIER   flcEl|ol   0000E4
             I 72. ti rt"s theresaidofrmdueinfluence   whichwill avoida will "It is the us€ofsuchappliances    and
            influences take awaythe freewill ofthe testator, subsdnrte
                          as                                    end            anoftet's,.villfor his, 8othat h fact
            the itrsttm€nt is not theexpression   ofthe wishesoffhe f€shtor in the disposition  ofthe ptop€rfy,but of
            the wishes    ofanother.Bqt whercno ftaud or deception practiced,
                                                                    is           merepersuasion not invalidate
                                                                                                   will
            a will on thogroundofuadueiltuence. O! tle contary, a testator      mayproperlyreceivethe advicg
            opinions, argumensofothers,andi{, afterall suohadvice,opinions,andarguments, testator
                         and                                                                            the        is
            not  confolled by themto &e ext€utofsunendering A. agency yieldinghis ownjudpent or
                                                                 his ec          and
            will, tbenthereis no suchuaclue   influenoe is requiredto be provedto avoidthewill. To vitiate or
                                                        as
                                                             the
            rendervoid a will by rearonofundueinfluenc€, influence       mustamouDt torce andco€rcion.
                                                                                         to
            deshoying agenoy, not merelythe influeocaofaffection, or merelythodesire
                          ft€e       and                                                            ofgratifring
            atrother; it mustappoar thewill wasobtained this ccercion-by inpo*mb that couldnot
                        brt              frat                     by
            beresisted; it wasmademerelyfor the sakcofpeaoe,so tlat theootive \tas equival€Dt forueaDd
                           that                                                                            lo
            fear.'!.lb€€v. Osqood. N.H. 89 (1918).
                                      ?9


     Burkesubstirufdhjs oumwill for thatofMarie's, He controlledher fnaupiat life totally.Marie expressly
Thomas

                            Thomssasked woultl not do whathe forhde. I;nrhe case bar, similarlt to the
testifiedshewould do whatever          and                                      at

iircumstano€s Fiserh , supr4 suchcvidonoe found. In that case
            in                          was                  therertas evidence the plaintiff, agai$t
                                                                              that

whomundueinfluenc€           was              adviserofthe testahixin respsctto all herbusiness
                  rvascharged, the oonfidential                                               affairs;

ttat her mndition, me.ntal physica[ wassuchthatshe',raspracticallyincapablc
                         and                                              offonning newideasandcould

be easilyinflueuced fte plaintifr tllat shehadatrinf€Dtion
                   by                                     ofdying inl€shtsbut the plaintiq amious to haveher

                                               took her to a scriv€'ner renahed with herwhile she
makea will in his favorand*nowing her condition,                      aad

                                             ofEdqedy arepresent tte case bar.In &lgerlv' the dsc€ded
exedrteda will in his favor.Eachofthe elornenb                 in        at

hadexpressed inlentioaofdying intesaie. Asinthe case bar,bothlv1r.andMrs. Bu*e had4greedthatthe
           an                                       at

propertybelonged tbemselv* andall oftheh childreneqirally. Mrrie Bulke exeqrt€d will u$il ThomdsBute
                to                                                             tro

took her to his lavycr to $rite the wi . As in Rlserlv. at the dateofthe *{L Marie Bu*e wasold 8trdi; feeble

healttusheuas not liksly to form lew idoas, couldbe easilyinfluenced accede thewishgs
                                          she                      to     to         ofThomas

                                                                                whoreshenas
               bmrrght the ofrce ofThomasBurke' lauyen, Devina Millimet & Brancb.
Burkg andsheraas     to

itrtroducEd Afioney Bufh Arselt The burdon
          to                              might usuallybe on the Plaintifi, Edqard BEks, io demonshats

                                                                                   mendmeotsto her
wh€ther not it is trtorsprobablethanotherwise, lrfrs. Bute's will Tnst a[d subsequent
      or                                     that

     wercprepared uaduo
Trust,          by             The         Supreme heLlthat&e usual
                      influeace. NewHampshire    Cofi             presumption
                                                                            and

                                 it
vatidityof thewill does srisewh€o is ffi'ecuted
                      aot                         cirqmsarc€ssuc.h theTestatrk dependent
                                              under              that        was

             to                                                                  showing ihe
                                 makes will in thato&er'sfavor,andthere 8! absence
uponor subjest theconfiolofanothor,  a                                i5               &at

         vas
nansaction fairand honest,

                  in                                     rmd his deafrandnas uaderDoone's cotrtol .
                                        ofhis oradbusiness
        ThEtestator Atb€o.suprz,hadc&args

Iv{arieBuJkenevorlvtoteher orm checlcs rslied m lhomasto Bot oDlym rege affdiresbut slso to pay every
                                     sud                               her




                  VI'€ENTATflENI€RS,..R,   - ArrOR$lEYFl4W-   e4 AAY SIBEI-UAI'|CI|EE   E, t{{ O9lO4
                               was                                                 Attomey
                                                    whsnthe will ard tust weredrawn.
                                              present
singleerpenseofher living Thomas construc.tively

                                       Tnrst,thelfuee Amendments lhe Trust, the deedfrom Marie to the
An:ell senta draft of fte WilL Revocable                       to

                                                                reviewedeachdocunentand advised
Trust andthe deedfrom theTrust to Thomas, Maris to review,.Thomas
                                        to                                                    his

                                                                             who shamdin a
                   ifany io makg audwhether not sheshouldsigD docunenb.Thomas,
motherrrhat changes,                      or                 lt€

                                                                                          and
                              with Marig aoquired interestasa r€sultofan improp€roonvE/ance, hewill
confidentialfamily rolationship                 atr

be unjustlyenriched                                                                  Theroareno rigid
                   mless a cotrstuctivetnst is imposed his inlorestin the real estate.
                                                     on

requirements a constuclivefust anda courtmayimpose
           for                                                                       ofone who
                                                  sucha tstrst pfevetrtthe eDriclrn€nt
                                                             to

       title
acquires to Foperty inproperly-


        Duringthe corrseoftheir relationship,                                 nrote andsignedall her
                                                 kept Mario'sfitrmcial records,
                                            Thomas

checks pay everysingleoneofher bills. Joint checking
      to                                                  weros€tup wilh Thomas thrrrdeposilsof
                                                   accounts                    so

                                                                See,Archerv. Dow. 126N.H. 24
Marie's incomefrom r€nb andBuny's Market codd bemadeby theThomas.

(1985).Shedeeded tandandbuildingon wtich Brmty's marketvas slnrate thomas fifiy years
               the                                                to                 affer tte oral

agreoment mado,andsixty yeersor moreafterit nas first purohased B€f,lad Bwke for &e fimily. No
        was                                                   by

monetarycoDsideration paid by thc defendaut thistadifer. Ar attorney
                    *as                   for                       paid for by &e defondaut
                                                                                           Thomas

                                                                            had
prepared deed. Marie couldnot eveoidenti$ the deedin Coudbut loew tiat Thomas reviewodany
       the
"importa$ documesPan4 ifher signature affxe4 hadtold herto sig! iL No attom€yindicated
                                    was                                              wherherheor

shehadinquiredabor:rt plaiatiFs ability !o read,although
                   &e                                   testieonyrrzs ofiored by fte plaintiffand Marie Buke

in Corrt thatshecouldeithernot r€ador not understndthe docummhpresentod he.r.A confidentialrelationship
                                                                      to

existsifthere is a nporsonal
                          relationship sucha character fte transferor justified in believing
                                      of             that           is                      that the
                            "
transferee aotin his interest Corawetlv. Comwell.I l6 NJI.20J,209, 356 A2d 6E3,686 (I9?Q (quoting
         will

                                                                            that
Kachaniaa Kachaniau100N,IL 135, l3?,l2L A3d 566,568(1956)).Therecordindicates Made was
         v.

        uponThomas transporhdon leastto lanyers' offices),bankingsenicec,thepreparation
dependent        for           (at                                                    ofohech

andthepala.ent ofbilts. This ovid€nce        established sxistotrco relationship
                                    adequat€ly         the        ofa           whicheouldjusti&

tlro plaintiff in believingthatthe defendant                            Comwcll supr4 atZO9,356Azn at 6&6.
                                           would act iu her b€stinterest.


              as          actingin a "Educiarycapaoity,'had.fteburde'n
        Thomas, beneficiary                                                           ofundue
                                                                     ofpmving auabsence

influencebaseduponthe inferencsofundue influescewhichadsoc cas€6 whlohthe beneficiary tansfer
                                                          in   fu                   ofa

holdsa positionoftus! atrdconfdece with fte partym,king the tsansfer.                     SioceMarie,
                                                                   Eee{y, supr4 8t 408-409.




                                                                                                 000086
                 vttcENrA$,Er.6GRS -|l -trTonNF   Ar lA'v- g4 EAYSTFEET- UAttcl{EslEF. NH @tor
the                    upouor utrderfiie controlofthe donee, sitrcefte ladertook an activepart in procuring
            wasdependent                                   and

the       it maybe infened thatthe gift rrasprocured undueinfluence. this cas€,i! mustb€ fo[ud tlal at the
                                                    by             Il

time                                                                                  to              atlairs,
          will wasmadethe plaintiffwas the conlidettial adviserofthe testahixin rqspect all horbusinoss

and                     uponhin andsubjectto his conFolfu r€spest suchmattersithat her condition"
          shewasdependent                                       to

          ald mental,wassuchthatshe*as hardly capable fotning newideas, coulclbe easityinfluencod
                                                    of                but                        to

do as     wished;that shehadfonnedan intentionofdying intestate, llat he,amrious havehermakea will in
                                                               but             to

his                                                               with hsr while sheexedtted wiUgiYing
           andknowingher conditioq took herto a soivenerandremained                         a

hin                                                                    Alftorrglr ttrereis a differonce
                  all her property (exceptfor thatsetasideto Bemardine),                               ofopinion

asto                       ,t/hichmaybo drawnAom these
               the inference                                                                 that dn
                                                      faotsis oneof&st or law, all courtsagres

           r.nfarrorable thewlidity of thewill maybe drawniom &em; in othc wonls, all courtshold thatthey
                       to

havea                                                                                82
                                                                    Burnhann H€delton- Me.495; Paften
                 to provethatlie will wasproctred by rmdte influence.      v.                        v.

Cillev.    N.H. 520, 528; In re Barnev.70 Vt- 352: Woodbur.v. Woodburv.141Mass.329; DrskekADpeal'45

Conn- Turnels Abp€al 72 Conn 305; In re Smith'sWilL 95 N. Y. 516; Gilham'sCase. N. J. Eq. 715; Herster
                                                                              64

                                Estar€. Pa" 528;Henre HaIL106
            122Pa-St 239;Waltntr's    194 St.       v.       Ala 84,-54AIn"SLRep.22;Wells

             23 Tex. Civ. App. 629;McParland Larkin 155IIL 84; Marnaril v. Yinon- 59 Micl|. 139;&v.eraqgg
                                           v.

               90 Micb" 4U; Ross Con'rav.92 Cal.632; Bin$am v' Salene15Or. 208,-3 Alr, SLl(ep. 152.In
                                v.

tu|s      it coutdbe fomd it \rnstheplainti{, andnot the testatia whomadothewill. TVIerv' Gardiner. N. Y.
                                                                                                  35

                      25
5s% ; Delafield Parisb- N. Y. %35,92.
              v.



          3. Tm PARoI,E EVIDENCE
                               RULE:


                       havechedthe Pdols Evidence
          The Defendants                         RuIefor tte proposition no testimony
                                                                       that          shouldbe

                                      regarding gifts of stlck aid lhat this caseinvolvesgifls ofthe rtock
          with rEspegt atroral agreemed
                     to                        the

The                                                                  covelsonly a salo. Sincothe
            EvidenceRule is inapplicable.Tle StockRestiction Agresment

             by its torms,doesmt covera gift, thenthe Courtmustdecide$hich is to be accepted:Edwsrd Burl(e's

           that all four ofthe famiV m€mbers                    oqually,or ThomasBurke'se$imony that
                                           wereto own thebusiuess

                  oxisted Thescales tippcdwell in frvor of&e Plainti4 EdrrardBurkc's veFion, b€aaus€
          agr€emont               re

            testifiedthat ev€athoughshedid not wo* at tte busitr€ss, \Pas irll-time realtor,andwasmisinga
                                                                   (she  I




                                                                                                       0000E7
                   VIiICENTA$IEIf.@5,.R.-AflGNEYAT   I.AI'V- A4 BAY 6TRET-   }IAI€I.BTEFI   NH (!NO4
                     herselftohavoa one-fourthownership                                   by
                                                       interost. This opinionwasnianifested her
famity), sheconsidered

suggestionthatinlggt,athorftther'sdea0Lrhatwhenthebusinasswasincorporate4tlatshebegivenatwenty-
                                                                to           r,rms
                           interesr.This opinion,lhatshecontinued be anonnrer,                    when
                                                                                 firulor manifested
           siockol|/Irership
five percent

sheindicated whoever
            that   stolctle motrey February, 996 fiom a cash
                                  in       l                register, stolenfrom the entireftmily.
                                                                    had

The stock Resbiction                                   intende4 nsFdwardBufte testifie4 solelyto
                    Agfeement clearlyboilerplatelanguage
                            is                                 just

keopa third pady tom obaining onnership.
                                                                          werenot a giff asEdwards
        O! the conhary,iftho transforoffte stockto Thomas MarieandBemardine
                                                         by

                                                       thetrthelel0s ofthe sto{k Restriction
                                          consideratiorl                                    Agreoment
oontends, in frct a salebecawetheyreceivert
        but

apply.Insuohcase,stockdrustfirstboofferedtothecorporatio4wbichhastheprivilegeofpurchasingthesame:

Ifthat wereto happe4thecorporationshoulct ordertd by tbis court to purchase saBeat is faif ma*et vslue'
                                        bo                                the

                                                                   offte ormershipto Thomas The
                          ofthc or,rarership Edwardalxdfify p€r9etrt
thersbygiving fifty percent               tl

                                                                           a gifl srch a gift is prohibitedby
Defendanscauoi haveit both,,vays.rth€y itrto l thetaDsfer ofrhe stockto be
                                                                                                    asa salo'
                then that all four alr to bo equalownefs, I[, otrthe o6er han4 it ii to bc coDsidered
            amoug
the agreement

              mustbe allowedto purchase same.
the corporation                       the



        4. CONSIDERATION XEE STOCKTRANSFER:
                       FOR

        ThsPlaintifi,E&vardBu*e,hasakenthepositiontlattiestockta$fenareitrfa.dasalebecausgthe

                      solety lovoandaffecrionAs MadoBurks
tralsfernasnotmotivared    by                                    ftmily andmoney abouan
                                                         t€€tifieq             had

equalor.ovon/Stweu-,iEportanceinh€rviow.Bomardiner|idnotgivothetweDty-fivepslc€stoftl€dock

ownershipshohaclinthebusilessnamedsfterhgr(BunryisherniclmamcandBmny'sisthenameofftestorgJ'

sheaa$f€,rred stock ThoEas
            lhe   to     Buke,asshet*tifiod, in ortter hscould
                                                     that     retaincoDtolandproteot
                                                                                   hfusel{'

theoretically,agailst&heard"Therevasaquidproquqlowover,rvhichshevasreluatanttoudiculate'Sbs
                                                                         until a week
               fioug[ she nevor thewin or Tnrs Indeonre Amendm€ntsthcsanre
                         had  seen                    alit      to
tesifieatut oven
                           hef                           to           oftr*
                                    inteations wilh rcsPect dispositiol
                       u/hat molher's        were                                                 propely' or
before tia! that$e knew
     the

course, must
      she     been
           havo  promtsed       because anal
                        something     she Thonas tostifieil &eyhadmottogebsr
                                               both       tut

                              April l, 20M,whcn
                         beforc                                                  rvieuMarie
                                               theyagreed n'ansftr *ock to Ttomas,
                                                        to       the
anttwith Mariein thervedcs
                       tho              on                                   entirely'
                                               Buny'8 $Pe'fotle rib:ate Thomas
                transfer landandbuildings urhioh              was     to
agreed have Trust
     to   the


                                                                                                        000088
                  v$rcENrA,YlElSGRS, -R.- !fiCn$F   Ari-A9t-44 9Ar sfREEr- IUNCHESIER'NII ctort
on March l?, 2004,atrdthBconsideration
                                     was'rheFirst Amendment theTrust,aswell asthe deed
                                                          to                          ofthe landand

buildingsto Thomas, additionto givingThomasan optionto purchase Libe$y Ste€t propertyfor $90,000,
                  in                                          tle                               a

                                                                           on
                                       Fhst Artr€'n&uent tlrc Trust,executed April5,20M, wasthe
Aadion of its fait ma*et value. Thatsame              to

            for         agreemont transferthesrookto ltomas (i.a, theresidueofthe estate to go to
consideration Bemarrdine's      to                                                     was

her andthe residueconsistcd                                                           oftbe saleof
                                      situateon Arah Strool,86 Websto Steeq theproceeds
                          ofrcal estate

                                                                                                  with
                                                           950,000 porfolio in Marie's namqtogother
Liberly Stest (i.e., the $90,000.00) rvell asrle approximate
                                   as

                                         accounf in Thomas'andMade'snames.
wlatever filndswerein thgjoint'teal estate

                 maynot havereadfte witl, TrustInd€Dnue yadousamendments, shetestified,but sheis
        Beraardine                                    atrd             as

                      portiouoftho family's propertyin consideration
to receivea zubstantial                                                         of&e rfock & ltomas.
                                                                   ofher transfer                       See

                                                                                  the
                                                     rvhere in$nrment(in ihis case, deedfrom
Durkin- supra. Tho Courtmaygant reformaiion pmperoases
                                           in              the

Marie Bu*e to the Tnst, andthentheTtut to ThomasBu&g aswell ss ths wilL the powov€r Trusqandthe

vadousametrdments fto Tr$r) frils to epross the intentions tle parties in makiugthe origtral agrsemsnt
               to                                        fhat        had

                  of6e &mily equally. Seeft@lgg4$ryjSg,
to test all memb€rs                                            supra;Gasron supra-



        5. THE FIDUCIARY DIITY OF A DE FACTO ATTORNEY:

                          Bu.*0, acned a armberofyears asa de&oto afiarneyfor Msrie Bur*e.
        lte DefendantThomas          for

Accordingln ifthe Courtweteto 61d tiat ifre trarsfef off€sl €state Thomas, exeantiou
                                                                 to      fhe        of&e tEill 9ndTrusl

                                                                                           regarding
                                                              heldoverMarie andher decisions
                             pmductsoflhe costrolflfiioh Thomas
by Marie Bgrte, weresubshntial

proporty,Thomasshould heldro rhesame
                     bs             shndardasrsquiredfor an afiomeyassotforh by RSAChapt€r506.

Specificalll RSA 506,IV (b) providec iftho agentmadea ramfer for lessthunadequatc
                                    ftaf                                                    the
                                                                                considerarioq

                                              oftbe svidenoe thetransferwasauftorizedandlt|asnot a
ageotshBI bs requir€dto proveby a pr€ponderarcs            that

                                                Thmas basnot mst thisbrudeaof proof,
                        fr6udor rnisePr€senDation
rcsuft of rmdueinfluence,




        6. THOMASBIJRKEVIOL\TEDTSEUNFORM{RAIJDULENTTRANSF&RACT:

        In Isiatsios.
                    suprq   oftherealestate, in thecase hr, hadbeen
                         some              as         ar          corygyed &e deoedent the
                                                                         by         to

         to             The           held         Uniform
thedecedent thohousekeeper. $4rme Court thatunderthe              Transfer RSA
                                                          Fraudulent     Aoq




                                                                                               000089
                 VINCF.ITAIIEISERq,"R.-ArIOfiAEYtrTATY-44   E,HV6TFEET-IIANCfiETERT.THCBIo.r
                                                      mless 6e tsansferse in goodfaith andfor
      545-4" theTriat Courtr*asableto sstaside trBnsfer
Chapter                                       the                       took

reasonably                                                                          ThomasBu*e,
                                                     and in &e cose bar,the defendant,
                            RSA 545-A:8. tn Tsiatsios.
                  value. See,
         equivalent                                                at

                     oftho landandbuildiugon whichBruny's Sup€rtle, Inc. sat'did not give reasonably
wto nas the tsansferee

                          for          and,asa resull it is prop€rfor ajudgment be entered tt€
equiralentvalue in exchaage the transfer                                      to         for

                                                                                         againstMarie
Plaintiff. The SupreneCourtheldthal ftere wasno necessitjr the Plahtiffto obtainajudgrnent
                                                         for

                    or                      b€forethe Courtis ableto setaside trsnsferif in doingso,
                           Bukq thstrmsfefee,
Bu*c, tte transf€ror, Thomas                                                 the

                  ihe     befweon partiesandifby declhing to do so' ir is uable to enforce
it will effectuate agre€mont    the                                                       the

                    in            casqiu frot madeit clearto thc hou.sekeeper sheshouidsell the real
agreemenlThe 6ecedent the Tsiatsios                                        that

                             'pull it into coue. Thistestimonyis remarloblysimitarto thatofferedby Thomas
     beforethe chililrencould
estate

Burte thathis motheruas pronrpt€d coDvey reatestate that Edward
                                to     dre         so          Burke,couldnot puUrl" t 'il unamst

inlo ProbateCourt,

                                                     the                           propertyin order
                                                               offauctulBn{yconv€yed
         It is not necassary asserr claimsolelyagainst Fausforoe
                          to      a

         the           ofthe same.$ee,TownofNottinehamv. Bonsur.146N.H.418 (2001). It is not solely
to s€curg re-cotrveyancs

        to                          esbtesat doatb,that are eithersnforoed not edorcedby tle Sl4reme
agresmeDts bequ€aftproperty, to leaVe
                           oJ'                                           or

Corrt oftlre StateofNew Hanpshirebasedtryo! oral agsemeds, or setaside thebasisoffraud dures or undue
                                                                      on

                                                                                                    in
                                                                                 propertysottlement a
influence, In Andersen AndeFep-125NJr 686(lgM), the suprene oourt heldthata
                        v.
                                                                            'fraud' undueinfluonm' deceit
                                         ofNew llampshire,maybe serasidefor
divorce,like any otter conhactin tbs staoc
                                                    supremo                                 that
                                                           court heldthatths basioruls lt,'as
andmi.sropresentation" Du*in npra . ThoNow Hampshiro
                    seo,
                                                                                              uihid failed to
                                       oftrs! (2) a breachofthat tusq and(3) a resultingac'tion
the plaintifneed prove(l) a relationship

fillfill fte plaintiffs inteDtions.




                   FROMTIIN COI'RT:
IIL RELIEF REQUBSTED


                                                               rlict
                               reque$s fte Coudgrad thefollowing
         ThePlainlifircspcclnilly    that

                                                                                       b€twegnlte
          A        ThePlahtifirequ€ststheCourtonlorspecificPedonnalceofthe oral agre€m€nt

                          this decrec giveneadycomplete
                   parties.         will               reliofand uot punishtheDcfurdanlsany more thso

                   is neceSsary.




                                                                3l                                           ooottgo
                    r mr€   rfa l4E1rtl€Fs. JFI- gt€RtIEYAf                                           qIO4
                                                              LA/V- A4 BAY STREr-   MAI'raGSTEF,1*l
                                                                           and
                                                                      Thomas Marie
     As an aid to sp€cificperformance, Plaintiffrequests the Defendants
                                    the                that

                                 the        conveyed Thomasto the nameof Marie,tud tllat a
     Burke be requiredto recotrvey realestate      to

     conshuclivetrust be impressed therealestate the benefitof the partiesto toeverbal
                                 ol             for

     agreement.

                                                                                   Aom
                                                         tliereto,aswell aslte deeds
                                        Trustandamendnents
     The Courtrul€ thattheWill, Revocable

                                                                               and/ormdlle
     Mads to the Trust andtheTrustto Thomas sei asideastbe resultoffrau4 dulass,
                                          be

                                                                  by            frust
     influencsandrestored thestairsquoasofJanuart 9, 1999,impressed a conshuctiv€ for
                        to

     the benefitofthe panies theoral agre3metrL
                            to

D.                                  reformthewill andtust anddeeds
     The Court man in the altsmativo,                             exerxrted MarieBur*e,il
                                                                          by

                            provisions
     oide.rthatthe beneficial                                            orden
                                           conform the agreemonl otherwise
                                     thereOf      io           and

     restitutionofth6 propertytaken                                                      real
                                   Fom thePlaintiq i.e. his eqd inferestin the corpomtion"

                   proporty
     estate p€rsonal
           and                          MadeBrnke's sstate.
                           of&e defsndatr

                                                                                        trust
                          truston MadeBud(e'sestaie the plaintiffs benefrt A constructive
     lnpress a constructive                       for

     will arisewhentherebasbeen oonvelanoe
                               a         ofan estate                        or
                                                    upona promiseto reconvey, tho

     convelancewasprooured Faud,duress undue
                         by          or     influcncs, A cons$uctivetust followinga

              ofreal estale mostcommonly
     convoyance            is                 vheu a court filds: "' uqiust€oriotnen$
                                        imposed

     andeitlrr a mnfidentialor a fiduciaryrelationship. I A. SCOTT,TIIE LAW OFTRUSTS$
                                                      See

     44.1-3, at33444 (196D.A consrructivs wilt arisewhsn tho convoyalce procurcdby
                                        tust                           was

                or              or      particsstanding a confidontialor firfuciary
     Aaud duress unrlueinfluence, betweon              in

                                        onitted.) Comyell suPra 208; See!|bgb
     relationshipto €achother."(Citations                      8t                             v-Robi$gtr

                           A2d742,?45(1977);
     I t7 N.H. 1032,1936,381                      r'[rb,
                                           Eleal'as                        107N'H' 393'399'224A2d

     74,78-79 (1966).

F.   Reformthe deeds                            Trust andfrom the Tru$ to Tbomas
                   tom MarieBurto to &o RFvocable                               Bulke'

                                                            "It is old andwell-egablished tha!
     The courthasundoubted   equitypowerto oder rr'isrelief                             law
                                                    :
     equity,at tho iDstance grantbr... will reforma vohmtaryco[veyeooe' TVlsrv. l.8rsor|.106
                          ofa

     Cal. App. 2il 317,3 19,235P.2d3g,4l (1951);RESTATEMENTOF RESTITUTION$ 49

     (r937).


                                                  32                                            00fl'91
     VII.,IC€NTAWE}TI'IEFIi,,.F., FIORNEYtrLAV-    A4 BAY STREET' MANC}ESIEf|'   I'I}I 6104
             Awardtheplaintiffhis aftorney'sfeesandcosts. view offte fact thatThomes'relationship
                                                        In                                       with

             Marie did not allowhim to be the tansfereeofher prop€ny,a glant ofreasonable
                                                                                        attome/s fees
                                          "This coudhasheldthatanawardofafiomey's fe€sis appropriate
             io the plaintifis appropriate.
             '[w]herean individualis forcedto seekjudicialas.sistancesecure clearlydefinedand
                                                                   to     a

             established                                     withoutsuchintervedion..." Harteem
                       righq viich shouldhavebeenfroelyeqjoyed

             v. Adams.I 1?N.H. 687, 691, 377 A.U 617,619(1977).In Ha*eom we notcdthatjudicial

                                  rule that litigans paytheiroul.attomey'sfeesare flexfuleand not
             excoptiorx the general
                       io
                                                                       nbadfaith' exceptionto
                                                             fte
             absolute. at 690,317 A.2d at 619 \!e thenextended exiting
                     @                       ,

             includecases wfiich a pa4y'swrongfidcondu.fcaused
                        in                                         pa$y to instiMo a lawsuitin
                                                             another

            orderto prot€cta olearlydefinedrighl Id. IaPaqetter. &, C/air, I 19N.IL 404,407,4a2 A2d

             182, 184(1979),we heldthd rhe "defendanh'rmwananted
                                                              conductin vrongfully reaining

            plaintitrs propertyandtheir'anogantdisegardofplaintiffs rigbts'cotrstituted bith-" Thisbad
                                                                                      bad

            hith fonneda poper basisfor an awardofatromE/sfe€sagainst deftndsnb in Paqpeffe.
                                                                    lhe

                                 the        conduct wrongfuly withdrawingald r€*aidngtbefimds
            Likewise,in ihis case defendant's     in

            fim thoplaintiffs bankaccourtsforcedths ptaintiffto iDstituts lawsuitto recoverthosemonies.
                                                                         a

            Tte defe,ndaufs    wereparlicululy wrongfi:lbeoause defeualaDt a position oftust
                         actions                              fro       held

                                                           amplsproofoftle defendalrt's &ith and
            andconfidlncewith theplaintiff. Therecordpresenb                          bad

                                                            Ar-cher DoE 126Nfi' 24 (198t'
            supporaan awardof aflome)"sfeesto lbe plaint'rff.     v,

      H.    Entorjudgp.ent the Plaintiff on ths Countaolaim.
                         for



                                                            illy
                                                     Respeclf submited:




     Iune27,2005
Dated:
                                                       pent Wemers, Esquire
                                                          A.      Jr.,




                                                       33                                         000092
             VII\EENTAWEI'IAER5, -Fl.- AIToF|{EYAr   r.Afl- a4 BAY STREET- MANCHESIER. NH Gllor