In re Estate of Earle K. Fox, Jr.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0386, In re Estate of Earle K. Fox, Jr., the
court on March 18, 2016, 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 appellant, Earle K. Fox, III, appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(Quigley, J.) denying his motion to reopen the estate of the decedent, Earle K.
Fox, Jr. We construe the appellant’s brief to contend that: (1) the executrix
provided an incomplete inventory of the estate’s assets; (2) the executrix violated
her fiduciary duty to the decedent pursuant to a power of attorney by accepting a
deed to real estate from the decedent approximately one year before his death;
and (3) the trial court erred in denying the motion to reopen the estate.

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 appealing party’s burden on appeal to provide a record that
is sufficient to decide the issues that he is raising and to demonstrate that he
raised those issues in the trial court. Id. The trial court’s decisions are final and
all appeals are deemed waived unless a notice of appeal has been filed within the
time allowed. Prob. Div. R. 74. These rules are not relaxed for self-represented
parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57
(2006).

To the extent that the appellant argues that the executrix violated her
fiduciary duties under a power of attorney and that she failed to correctly
inventory the decedent’s property, the record before us does not demonstrate that
these issues were raised in the trial court. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. On the
contrary, the record includes the appellant’s consent to the executrix’s first and
final accounting. Furthermore, the record does not reflect that the issue relating
to the accounting was timely appealed. To the extent that the appellant argues
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reopen the estate, he has not
developed that argument, and we decline to address it. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk