In the Matter of Tracy Mansur and Harley Mansur

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0450, In the Matter of Tracy Mansur and
Harley Mansur, the court on January 22, 2016, issued the
following order:

Having considered the brief 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 petitioner, Tracy Mansur, appeals a final decree issued by the Circuit
Court (Carroll, J.) in her divorce from the respondent, Harley Mansur. The
petitioner argues that the trial court erred by considering as part of the marital
estate a truck which, she asserts, she purchased with settlement funds arising
out of events that occurred prior to the marriage, and by awarding it to the
respondent.

RSA 458:16-a, I (2004) makes no distinction between property brought to
the marriage by the parties and property acquired during the marriage. In the
Matter of Sarvela & Sarvela, 154 N.H. 426, 431 (2006). Regardless of the
source, all property owned by each spouse at the time of divorce is to be
included in the marital estate. Id. We afford trial courts broad discretion in
determining matters of property distribution in fashioning a final divorce
decree. In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006). The
trial court may, in its discretion, award a particular asset in its entirety to one
party. In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002). We will
not overturn the trial court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of
discretion. Id. at 34. If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the
evidence presented, they will stand. Id. at 36.

The petitioner has not provided a transcript of the divorce hearing. It is
the burden of the appealing party, here the petitioner, 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, [s]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 petitioner’s arguments contain factual assertions premised upon
evidence presented to the trial court during the divorce proceedings. Absent a
transcript of the proceedings, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient
to support the trial court’s decree. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396
(1997). Based upon this limited record, we cannot conclude that the trial court
erred in considering the truck to be part of the marital estate or that it
unsustainably exercised its discretion in awarding the truck to the respondent.
See Sarvela, 154 N.H. at 431; Letendre, 149 N.H. at 34.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2