Town of Hampton v. Thomas L. Morgenstern

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0330, Town of Hampton v. Thomas L.
Morgenstern, the court on February 19, 2015, issued the
following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Thomas Morgenstern, appeals an order of the Superior
Court (McHugh, J.) in favor of the plaintiff, the Town of Hampton (town). He
argues that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing a civil penalty of $550 per day
when he contends that the town issued only one notice of violation, see RSA
676:17, I (Supp. 2014); and (2) failing to find that the town’s claims were barred
by equitable estoppel and laches.

The appellant has the burden to provide this court with a record sufficient
to demonstrate that the issues on appeal have been raised before the trial court.
Town of Atkinson v. Malborn Realty Trust, 164 N.H. 62, 69 (2012). The trial
court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the
appellant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues
which could not have been presented to the trial court prior to its decision must
be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(e); see
N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002). These rules are
not relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham &
Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

Because the defendant has not demonstrated that he preserved for our
review his arguments regarding equitable estoppel, laches, or calculation of the
civil penalty, we decline to address them. See Malborn Realty, 164 N.H. at 69-70.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk