Katie Bedard v. Pearl Coyman

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0733, Katie Bedard v. Pearl Coyman, the
court on June 10, 2015, issued the following order:

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

The defendant, Pearl Coyman, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Gordon, J.) entering a judgment for the plaintiff, Katie Bedard, in the amount
of $5,600 plus costs and interest, arguing that the court erred in finding that
the parties entered into a valid contract for services and that the defendant
owed money to the plaintiff pursuant to the contract. She asserts that the
court failed to consider evidence submitted in support of her defenses.

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, to provide
this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal. Bean v. Red
Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (“If the
moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”); Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001)
(rules of appellate practice not relaxed for self-represented litigants).

The defendant’s arguments contain factual components premised upon
evidence presented to the trial court at the October 3, 2014 hearing. The
defendant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing. Absent a transcript, we
must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the decision reached.
See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997). Accordingly, we review the
trial court’s decision for errors of law only, see id. at 397, and find none.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk