Mark Glunts v. Mark Sanchez

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0484, Mark Glunts v. Mark Sanchez, the
court on February 27, 2017, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief filed by the plaintiff, Mark Glunts, and the
record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in
this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The plaintiff appeals the decision of the
Circuit Court (Kent, Referee, approved by Rappa, J.), which awarded him no
money on his breach of contract claim against the defendant, Mark Sanchez.
We affirm.

The trial court’s order recites the following facts. In September 2013, the
parties agreed that the defendant would construct speaker cabinets for the
plaintiff. The plaintiff gave the defendant a $650 deposit. The defendant
purchased plywood and began the millwork, but then became incapacitated.
The plaintiff attempted to contact the defendant on numerous occasions, but
received no response. Thereafter, he brought this action to recover his deposit.

The trial court found that the parties abandoned their contract.
Accordingly, the court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to the return of
his deposit. However, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the
cabinets in their unfinished state.

On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that “[p]hone documents . . . clearly
show[ ] that [he] did not abandon the contract.” However, the plaintiff has not
provided those documents in an appendix or requested the transfer to this
court of the trial court exhibits. Nor has he requested that a transcript of the
circuit court hearing be prepared.

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of providing this
court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal. Bean v. Red Oak
Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 13(2) (“The moving
party shall be responsible for ensuring that all or such portions of the record
relevant and necessary for the court to decide the questions of law presented
by the case are in fact provided to the supreme court”; “[t]he supreme court
may dismiss the case or decline to address specific questions raised on appeal
for failure to comply with this requirement.”); 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, he shall include in
the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion.”).
Without a transcript of the circuit court hearing and the exhibits entered
therein, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the result
reached by the trial court. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. 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). Because the plaintiff has not
developed an appellate argument demonstrating that the trial court erred as a
matter of law, we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2