Cited by

We have consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the trial court.

Accordingly, we decline to address them.

We agree.1 We have held that a party’s failure to request an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal under Supreme Court Rule 23 based upon the alleged frivolous or bad faith nature of the appeal waives any claim for those fees in the trial court.

We review the trial court’s calculation of attorney’s fees under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, and if there is some support for the trial court’s decision, we will uphold it.

The party claiming an appearance of partiality bears the burden of proof.

w Hampshire law, claims are “analytically severable” when they seek different relief, see Funtown USA, Inc. v. Town of Conway, 129 N.H. 352, 356 (1987); claims are not “analytically severable” when they constitute alternative theories of recovery and the evidence necessary to prove liability under one theory is relevant to prove liability under the other theory, see LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 261 (2006).

LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 259 (2006) (stating we have exclusive authority to award attorney’s fees incurred on appeal); Harkeem v. Adams, 117 N.H. 687, 691 (1977).

He contends that the trial court erred by: (1) conditioning the reinstatement of his action upon his payment of the defendants’ attorney’s fees; (2) dismissing his action; (3) concluding that he failed to prosecute his action; and (4) denying him his “due process right to be heard.” This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.

If there is some support in the record for the trial court’s determination, we will uphold it.” LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 259 (2006) (quotation omitted).

We review a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, giving deference to the trial court’s decision.

She contends that she lacked the capacity to agree to the plan because she was “distraught” during the divorce proceedings and “suffer[ed] from mental and emotional duress.” We decline to address her challenge to the parenting plan, however, because she did not raise the argument before the trial court, and, therefore, has not preserved it for our review.

We have long held that “we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.” LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 258 (2006) (quotation omitted).

LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 258, 910 A.2d 1162 (2006) (quotation omitted).

Moreover, the fact that the court may have granted an attachment or reduced the amount of the verdict in error is not, in and of itself, a basis for recusal.

LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 258 (2006) (quotation omitted).

“This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.” LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 258 (2006) (quotation omitted).

LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 258, 910 A.2d 1162 (2006) ("This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court."

LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 258 (2006) (“This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.” (quotation omitted)).

In the interest of justice in extraordinary cases, but not as a matter of right, the supreme court in its sole discretion may award *19 attorneys’ fees related to an appeal to a prevailing party if the appeal is deemed by the court to have been frivolous or in bad faith.

Supreme Court Rule 23 gives this court the exclusive authority to award attorney’s fees for an appeal, “if the appeal is deemed to have been frivolous or in bad faith.” LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 259 (2006) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, *53 259, 910 A.2d 1162 (2006) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).

As a result, we do not consider it.

“This court has consistently held that we will not consider issues raised on appeal that were not presented in the lower court.” Lamontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 258 (2006) (quotation *719 omitted).

LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 260-61 (2006) (superior court justice who did not preside over every hearing throughout course of litigation not precluded from awarding costs and attorney’s fees for proceedings conducted by a different superior court justice).

re of the fees and costs.” The court found specifically that “it would not be equitable for [the respondent] to pay fees and costs.” “An award of attorney’s fees must be grounded upon statutory authorization, a court rule, an agreement between the parties, or an established exception to the rule that each party is responsible for paying his or her own counsel fees.” LaMontagne Builders v. Brooks, 154 N.H. 252, 259 (2006).