Loretta Peterson v. Rock Bastianelli

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0464, Loretta Peterson v. Rock
Bastianelli, 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 defendant, Rock Bastianelli, appeals the final order of the Circuit
Court (Rappa, J.), after a hearing at which he failed to appear, finding him to
be in violation of RSA 540-A:3, I (2015), ordering him to pay statutory damages
to the plaintiff, Loretta Peterson, in the amount of $20,000 plus costs, and
ordering him to repair any housing, health, or building code violations related
to the plumbing or waste disposal systems in the leased premises. The
defendant argues that the court erred in issuing its order because he lacked
notice of the hearing.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of
matters not raised in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H.
248, 250 (2004). 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. See LaMontagne Builders v. Bowman Brook Purchase Group,
150 N.H. 270, 274 (2003); N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676,
679 (2002); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51,
56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules
that govern parties represented by counsel).

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, to provide
this court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal, as well as to
demonstrate that he raised his issues in the trial court. Bean, 151 N.H. at
250. Because our rules affirmatively require the appellant both to provide a
sufficient record on appeal and to demonstrate where each question presented
on appeal was raised below, see Sup Ct. Rs. 13, 16(3)(b), we may consider the
defendant’s failure to comply with these requirements regardless of whether the
plaintiff objects on those grounds, Bean, 151 N.H. at 250.
 The record fails to demonstrate that the defendant raised with the trial
court his claim that he lacked notice of the final hearing. Moreover, because
the defendant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing, we must assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s order. See Atwood
v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2