Joel Weiner v. Larry Harvey

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0688, Joel Weiner v. Larry Harvey, the
court on May 26, 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, Larry Harvey (owner), appeals a small claim judgment issued
by the Circuit Court (Runyon, J.) in favor of the plaintiff, Joel Weiner (builder). We
construe the owner’s brief to contend that the trial court erred because: (1) its
judgment was not supported by the evidence; and (2) the judge had a conflict of
interest that interfered with his ability to decide the case impartially.

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). The appealing party has the burden on appeal to provide a record
that is sufficient to decide the issues he is raising and to demonstrate that he
raised those issues in the trial court. Id. Absent a transcript, we assume the
evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court, id., and
review its order for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397
(1997). These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the
Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

In this case, the owner stated in the notice of appeal that a transcript of
the trial court hearing was not necessary. We note that on the day on which his
brief was due, the owner filed a “motion for vacate the brief” that sought
information regarding how to request a transcript. We denied that motion, in
part, because the owner failed “to explain why he waited until the due date for
his brief to express confusion about the procedure for ordering a transcript that
his notice of appeal said was not necessary for this appeal.”

In the absence of a transcript, we cannot determine what evidence was
offered or what arguments were raised in the trial court. See Bean, 151 N.H. at
250. Therefore, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial
court’s determination. Id. We review the trial court’s order for errors of law only,
see Atwood, 142 N.H. at 397, and find none.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk