In the Matter of Lisa Leary and John Leary

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0684, In the Matter of Lisa Leary and
John Leary, the court on April 6, 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 respondent, John Leary, appeals a final decree issued by the Circuit
Court (Introcaso, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner, Lisa Leary. See RSA
458:16-a (2004). The respondent argues that the trial court erred when it found
that monies he made available to the petitioner were “in the nature of
contribution to household expenses.”

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. Fam. Div. R. 1.26(F); 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).

The respondent argues that the funds he made available to the petitioner
were provided pursuant to a verbal contract between the parties “that the funds
be used in exchange for partial ownership in the home and since [the petitioner]
broke that agreement . . . those funds should be returned to” him. However, the
record, including the transcript that the petitioner provided, does not reflect, and
the respondent has not established, that he made this argument in the trial
court. Nor does the record establish that he raised the issue in a motion for
reconsideration. Because the respondent has not demonstrated that he
preserved for our review his argument regarding the parties’ agreement as to the
funds he provided, we decline to address it. See Malborn Realty, 164 N.H. at 69-
70.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk