concurring specially. Although I concur in the court’s judgment that the respondent, The MacDowell Colony, Inc. (MacDowell), is a charitable organization entitled to a tax exemption under RSA 72:23, V (2003) for the 2005 tax year, I write separately to explain my reasoning, which differs in some respects from that of the majority.
The petitioner, Town of Peterborough (Town), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to MacDowell. When reviewing a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Lacasse v. Spaulding Youth Ctr., 154 N.H. 246, 248 (2006). If our review of the evidence does not reveal a genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the trial court’s decision. Id. We review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo. Id.
The sole issue in this appeal, broadly speaking, is whether MacDowell is a charitable organization. While at oral argument, the Town asserted that one of the issues on appeal was whether MacDowell uses and occupies all or only part of its Peterborough property directly for its stated charitable purposes, see RSA 72:23, V, the Town failed to brief this argument. Thus, it is deemed waived. See Herman v. Monadnock PR-24 Training Council, 147 N.H. 754, 758 (2002).
To determine whether MacDowell is a charitable organization, we must look to RSA 72:23-i (2003), which defines the word “charitable” as used to *11describe an organization, and to our common law definitions of that term as RSA 72:23-l expressly states that it was not intended to abrogate those definitions.
For an organization to be deemed “charitable” under RSA 72:23-l, it must be:
established and administered for the purpose of performing, and obligated, by its charter or otherwise, to perform some service of public good or welfare advancing the spiritual, physical, intellectual, social or economic well-being of the general public or a substantial and indefinite segment of the general public that includes residents of the state of New Hampshire, with no pecuniary profit or benefit to its officers or members, or any restrictions which confine its benefits or services to such officers or members, or those of any related organization.
In ElderTrust of Florida, Inc. v. Town of Epsom, 154 N.H. 693, 697-98 (2007), we summarized the requirements of RSA 72:23-l in the first two factors of our four-factor test. These two factors are: (1) whether the organization is established and administered for a charitable purpose; and (2) whether it has an obligation to perform its stated purpose to the public rather than simply to its members. ElderTrust, 154 N.H. at 697-98. The other two factors of the ElderTrust test, whether the land, in addition to being owned by the organization, is occupied by it and used directly for the stated charitable purpose and whether any of the organization’s income or profits are used for any purpose other than the purpose for which the organization was established, mirror the requirements of RSA 72:23, V and, as previously discussed, are not at issue here. Id.
Additionally, we must look to the common law definition of “charitable,” which is derived from the law of charitable uses and charitable trusts. See Davie v. Association, 91 N.H. 494, 495 (1941) (to determine whether an organization is charitable for tax-exemption purposes, “resort must be had to the accepted doctrine respecting charitable uses, and that institution is charitable the property and funds of which are devoted to such purposes as would support the creation of a valid charitable trust” (quotation omitted)); Society of Cincinnati v. Exeter, 92 N.H. 348, 352 (1943) (relying, in part, upon RESTATEMENT OF Trusts to determine whether an organization is charitable); Greater &c. Girl Scout Council v. Pelham, 100 N.H. 24, 26 (1955) (organization is charity because its primary objective is to train young people for citizenship, which is a charitable purpose according to the Restatement of Trusts); Nature Conservancy v. Nelson, 107 N.H. 316, 317-18 (1966) (defining “charitable” by relying, in part, upon RESTATEMENT (Second) of Trusts). But see St. Paul’s School v. City of Concord, *12117 N.H. 243, 248 (1977) (although schools may be considered charitable organizations for purposes of charitable trust doctrine, they are not charitable organizations for purposes of tax exemption under RSA 72:23, V; for tax exemption purposes, schools are governed by RSA 72:23, IV).
Generally, charitable purposes fall into the following categories: (1) relieving poverty; (2) promoting health; (3) advancing education; (4) aiding religion; (5) providing governmental or municipal facilities and services; and (6) other purposes that are beneficial to the community. See Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 28 (2003); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 368 (1959); G. G. Bogert & G. T. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees §§ 373-78 (2d ed. rev. 1991).
According to MacDowell’s articles of incorporation, its charitable purposes are to:
promote the arts of music, literature and the drama, architecture, painting and sculpture, and the other fine arts; to encourage study, research and production in all branches of art; to develop a sympathetic understanding of their correlation and appreciation of their value; and to broaden their influence; and thus carry forward the life purpose of Edward MacDowell.
To accomplish these purposes, the articles of incorporation provide that the organization is to “acquire by gift and to develop ... the home of Edward MacDowell and his wife at Peterborough, in the State of New Hampshire” and to acquire any other property as necessary to accomplish these purposes. The MacDowell home in Peterborough, in particular, is to be “a place for work and companionship of students in all the arts, and to maintain the same as their home meanwhile.” Any funds of the organization are to be applied for the benefit of the students “during their respective lives.”
MacDowell’s purposes fall into the third general category of charitable purposes, advancing education. Generally, the purpose of MacDowell is to provide room, board and living expenses for students of art to study, research and produce art. See Bogert & Bogert, supra § 375, at 141, 145, 149 (arts education is a charitable purpose, promoting research is a charitable purpose and providing room, board and financial assistance to students is a charitable purpose). Alternatively, MacDowell’s purposes fall into the sixth category, other purposes that are beneficial to the community. See Restatement (Third) of Trusts, supra § 28 comment l on clause f, at 21. (“[A] trust is charitable if its purpose is to promote the arts and culture”) Thus, MacDowell meets the first factor of the ElderTrust four-factor test.
*13To qualify as a charitable organization, MacDowell must also meet the second factor of the ElderTrust four-factor test — it must be obligated to perform its stated purposes to the public, rather than to its own members. ElderTrust, 154 N.H. at 697-98. There are two components to this factor. The first concerns whether MacDowell’s articles of incorporation and the like actually obligate the organization to use its property for its stated charitable purposes. See Society of Cincinnati, 92 N.H. at 352-53. The second concerns whether the general public or an indefinite segment thereof are the beneficiaries of the services MacDowell is obligated to provide. See Nature Conservancy, 107 N.H. at 317 (to qualify as a charitable organization, the organization “must be under obligation to provide to the general public, or some indefinite segment of it, certain benefits of the kind usually provided by charitable organizations”); E. Coast Conf. of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America v. Town of Swanzey, 146 N.H. 658, 662 (2001) (“The test of the public character of a charitable institution is not that all of the public is admitted to its benefits, but that an indefinite number of the public are so admitted, that its benefits are not restricted to its corporate members.” (quotation omitted)). The Town’s challenge to the trial court’s ruling in this case focuses exclusively upon these two components of the second ElderTrust factor.
Contrary to the Town’s assertions, MacDowell’s articles of incorporation oblige it to use its property for its stated charitable purpose. We held in Society of Cincinnati that an organization’s charitable purposes are obligatory when its charter dedicates certain property to these purposes. See Society of Cincinnati, 92 N.H. at 352-53.
When and not until property becomes devoted to use for the benefit of the public, or some class of persons who may be reasonably regarded as part of the public, does a charitable trust exist. If there is some trust of public service it must be assignable predominantly, or in ascertainable proportions to definite property, to subject it to public enforcement.
Id. at 357. MacDowell’s articles of incorporation oblige the organization to devote the Peterborough property to the organization’s charitable purposes and, therefore, are sufficiently definite to be enforceable. See ElderTrust, 154 N.H. at 700; The Housing Partnership v. Town of Rollinsford, 141 N.H. 239, 241-42 (1996).
To my mind, the more difficult question is whether the general public or an indefinite segment thereof are the beneficiaries of the services MacDowell is obligated to provide. While admittedly the individuals who actually receive the room, board and living expenses from a fellowship at MacDowell are relatively few in number, this is not dispositive. Receiving a *14fellowship to MacDowell is like receiving a prize or an award for excellence in art, the benefits of which “are of a two-fold nature.” Sheen v. Sheen, 8 A.2d 136, 138 (N.J. Ch. 1939). Obviously, the individual fellows benefit, but “an indefinite number of persons in the United States, i.e., the general public,... necessarily receive the benefits” of the art produced not only by the artists who become fellows, but the other artists who compete to become them. Id.; see also Ashmore v. Newman, 183 N.E. 1, 3, 9 (Ill. 1932) (gift setting aside $2,000 to be invested in interest-bearing securities and directing that interest be paid annually to top-ranking graduate of certain high school and gift setting aside $1,000 to be invested in interest-bearing securities and directing that interest be paid to boy or girl in certain county for producing best calf or pig were charitable because they encouraged students to compete for them and, therefore, tended to advance learning and farming); In re McKenzie’s Estate, 38 Cal. Rptr. 496, 497, 499 (Dist. Ct. App. 1964) (trust that offers a “reward” to a person who discovers the cause of a certain ailment and provides a cure to the same is charitable even though the “reward” goes to only one person; “[t]he fact that a particular individual some day may qualify to receive the reward is but the instrumentality through which the benefits that will be bestowed upon the public are brought about”).
Thus, as the Restatement (Third) of Trusts notes, where a scholarship, prize or award is at issue, “[i]t does not matter... that... only one student or two may receive [it]... as long as the potential class of recipients will be drawn from an indefinite group . . . rather than from a group so narrowly defined (e.g., the settlor’s descendants or relatives)” as to make the organization a private charity rather than a public one. RESTATEMENT (Third) OF Trusts, supra § 28 general comment a(l) at 11; see Brady v. Ceaty, 207 N.E.2d 49, 49, 50 (Mass. 1965) (that trust provided for award to go to “one or more deserving boys or girls,” rather than a larger number was “immaterial... since the purpose of the trust was to promote education and the class of persons from whom the selection was to be made was indefinite in extent”) (quotation omitted)). As MacDowell accepts applications for its fellowships from anyone, the group from which it selects fellows necessarily is sufficiently large and indefinite as to comprise the general public or an indefinite segment thereof. Accordingly, the second ElderTrust factor is satisfied. The Town’s arguments to the contrary fail for the reasons set forth in the majority’s opinion.
For all of the above reasons, therefore, I agree with the majority that we should affirm the trial court’s determination that MacDowell is a charitable organization entitled to a tax exemption under RSA 72:23, V for the 2005 tax year.
DUGGAN, J., joins in the special concurrence.