In the Matter of John Tierney, III and Patricia Tierney

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0569, In the Matter of John Tierney, III
and Patricia Tierney, the court on May 11, 2015, issued the
following order:

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

The respondent, Patricia Tierney, appeals a final decree issued by the
Circuit Court (Introcaso, J.) in her divorce from the petitioner, John Tierney. See
RSA 458:7,:16-a (2004). We construe her brief to argue that the trial court’s
division of marital property was not supported by the evidence.

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 respondent’s burden on appeal to provide a record that is
sufficient to decide the issues she is raising and to demonstrate that she 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 respondent has 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.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk