Cited by

Because we have not considered documents in the respondent’s brief and appendix that were not provided to the trial court, see Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009), we conclude that the petitioner’s motion to strike is moot, see In re Guardianship of R.A., 155 N.H. 98, 100-101 (2007) (discussing mootness doctrine).

Those documents were not before the trial court, and thus, are not part of the record on appeal.

To the extent that the appellants’ appendix contains documents not provided to the trial court, we have not considered them.

The new evidence provided by the appellants with their reply brief that was not submitted to the trial court, and the statements and arguments in their reply brief concerning such new evidence, are stricken.

In the absence of a transcript, we cannot determine whether the documents provided by the defendant were introduced at trial, see Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009) (“On appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court.”), and we must assume that the testimony and other evidence presented at trial supports the trial court’s findings that the defendant converted the items of property at issue and owes the damages awarded by the trial court

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009) (“On appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court.”).

“On appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court.” Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

“On appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court.” Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009).

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Ct. R. 13 (defining the record on appeal); Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009) (stating that, on appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court).

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009) (On appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court.).

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

“In the meantime,” the defendant asserts, he “has detrimentally relied on [the plaintiff’s] implied agreement to allow him a life tenancy, by maintaining and making improvements to the property.” “Laches is an equitable doctrine that bars litigation when a potential plaintiff has slept on his rights.” Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009) (quotation omitted).

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009) (on appeal, we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court); see also Sup.

Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup.

e No. 2014-0410, Peter Saunders & a. v. Town of Kingston, the court on April 23, 2015, issued the following order: The defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ reply memorandum is granted to the extent that the memorandum raises new issues, see Panas v. Harakis & K-Mart Corp., 129 N.H. 591, 617-18 (1987), and relies upon evidence not presented to the trial court, see Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); Sup.