Jan Jasik v. Catamount Ridge, LLC a/k/a All State Builders, Inc.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0045, Jan Jasik v. Catamount Ridge, LLC
a/k/a All State Builders, Inc., the court on June 23, 2017,
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 plaintiff, Jan Jasik (buyer), appeals a small claim judgment issued
by the Circuit Court (Tenney, J.) in favor of the defendant, Catamount Ridge,
LLC a/k/a All State Builders, Inc. (builder). We construe the buyer’s brief to
argue that the trial court erred by: (1) not finding that the builder breached
the warranty of habitability; (2) not finding that the builder made material
misrepresentations; (3) not requiring the builder to resolve the defects in the
house and yard that the buyer identified; (4) relying upon the agreement the
parties entered into at the time of the sale; (5) not cross-examining the
builder’s representative under oath; (6) declining to admit the buyer’s exhibit;
(7) not relying upon expert evidence offered by the buyer; and (8) not requiring
the builder to comply with RSA chapter 359-G (2009), which establishes a
resolution procedure for disputes regarding residential construction defects.

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). It is the appealing party’s 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.; see Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (if
appealing party intends to argue that a ruling is unsupported by or contrary to
the evidence, the party shall include a transcript of all evidence relevant to
such ruling). Absent a transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to
support the result reached by the trial court, Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, 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 buyer has not provided a transcript of the hearing before
the trial court. Thus, we cannot determine what evidence was offered or what
arguments were raised. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. Accordingly, we assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determinations, id.,
we review its order for errors of law only, see Owens, 142 N.H. at 397, and we
find none.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2