In the Matter of Michele Mayo and Dana Mayo

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0231, In the Matter of Michele Mayo and
Dana Mayo, the court on January 13, 2016, 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, Dana Mayo (husband), appeals a final order by the Circuit
Court (Carroll, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner, Michele Mayo (wife),
awarding the wife alimony of $65 a week for approximately seventeen years. See
RSA 458:19 (Supp. 2016); Henry v. Henry, 129 N.H. 159, 162 (1987) (holding
rehabilitative principle of alimony not controlling when supported spouse suffers
from ill health and is not capable of earning income). We construe his brief to
contend that the trial court erred by finding that: (1) the wife was in need of
alimony; (2) he had the ability to pay alimony while meeting his own reasonable
needs; and (3) he owed $2,839 in temporary alimony arrearage.

The appealing party, here the husband, has the burden to provide this
court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal. See Bean v. Red
Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 13. In this
case, the husband has not provided this court with his motion filed in the trial
court to reconsider its order on the wife’s request for temporary alimony, or his
motion to reconsider the trial court’s final order. Nor has he provided the trial
court’s order on the first of these motions. Furthermore, his arguments are
minimally developed. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (stating
mere laundry list of complaints regarding trial court’s rulings, without developed
legal argument, is insufficient to warrant judicial review). Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk