Paula Herbeck & a. v. Miranda Royer; Miranda Royer & a. v. Paula Herbeck & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0544, Paula Herbeck & a. v. Miranda
Royer; Miranda Royer & a. v. Paula Herbeck & a., the court on
May 21, 2015, issued the following order:

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

The tenants, Paula Herbeck and Michael Williamson, appeal an order by
the Circuit Court (Ashley, J.) on their small claim against the landlord, Miranda
Royer. We construe the tenants’ brief to argue that the trial court erred by: (1)
finding that the landlord was not subject to the requirements of RSA chapter
540-A because she rents a single family residence and owns no other rental
property, see RSA 540-A:5, I (2007); (2) contradicting in its order findings it made
during the hearing; and (3) reviewing “items” presented at the hearing, which the
trial court said it would not consider. We further construe the tenants’ brief to
argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s findings
regarding: (1) the expenses the landlord incurred for fuel oil, cleaning, and
repairs; (2) their liability for five days’ rent in September; (3) their breach of the
lease by painting the interior; and (4) their removal of rose bushes.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of issues
they did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004). It is the tenants’ burden on appeal to provide a record that is
sufficient to decide the issues they are raising and to demonstrate that they
raised those issues in the trial court. Id.; see also Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (if appealing
party intends to argue that a ruling is unsupported by or contrary to the
evidence, the party shall include a transcript of all evidence relevant to such
ruling). Absent a transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to support
the result reached by the trial court. Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. These rules are not
relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham &
Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

In this case, the tenants have not supplied a transcript of the hearing
before the trial court. Thus, we cannot determine what evidence was offered or
what arguments were raised. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. Therefore, we assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination, id.,
and review its order for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396,
397 (1997). We find no errors of law in the trial court’s order.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2