In the Matter of Tarsha Lamarre and Jeremy Lamarre
In the Matter of Tarsha Lamarre and Jeremy Lamarre, No. 2015-0674 (N.H. Apr. 15, 2016).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0674, In the Matter of Tarsha Lamarre and Jeremy Lamarre, the court on April 15, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered the brief filed by the petitioner, Tarsha Lamarre, the memorandum of law filed by the respondent, Jeremy Lamarre, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Bean v. Red Oak Property Management, Inc. 151 N.H. 248
- Atwood v. Owens 142 N.H. 396
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0674, In the Matter of Tarsha Lamarre
and Jeremy Lamarre, the court on April 15, 2016, issued the
following order:
Having considered the brief filed by the petitioner, Tarsha Lamarre, the
memorandum of law filed by the respondent, Jeremy Lamarre, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The respondent appeals the parties’ final
parenting plan, which the Circuit Court (Leonard, J.) entered following a final
hearing at which the respondent did not appear. We affirm.
The trial court found the respondent to be in default. On appeal, the
respondent requests that we vacate the default judgment. He asserts that he
“missed [the] court hearing” because he “made the mistake of confusing dates.”
The respondent also requests that we enter a new parenting plan that awards
him equal parenting time with the parties’ children and unsupervised
visitation.
As the appealing party, the respondent had the burden of providing this
court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal, as well as to
demonstrate that he raised his issues before the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak
Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). The respondent has not provided the
court with the transcript of the final hearing. Nor has he provided the court
with any of the other documents that were filed in the trial court and would
support his requests for relief. Absent a sufficient record, we must assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court.
Id. Our review in such a case is limited to legal errors that are apparent on the
face of the record. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396-97 (1997). On the
record before us, we cannot say that the court erred either in finding the
respondent to be in default or in entering the final parenting plan.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk