In the Matter of Robert Howard, Jr. and Caroline Howard

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0290, In the Matter of Robert Howard, Jr.
and Caroline Howard, the court on November 13, 2017, issued
the following order:

Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, and limited record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The petitioner, Robert Howard, Jr. (husband), appeals the final decree of
the Circuit Court (Cross, Referee, approved by Foley, J.) in his divorce from the
respondent, Caroline Howard (wife), arguing that the court erred in ordering
him to pay alimony of $900 per month for four years.

The trial court issued its order after a final divorce hearing. The
husband failed to provide a transcript of the hearing for our review. It is the
burden of the appealing party, here the husband, to provide 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 also 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.”);
Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (rules of appellate
practice not relaxed for self-represented litigants).

Each of the issues raised by the husband contains factual components
and challenges the wife’s credibility and the weight given by the trial court to
the evidence presented. Based upon the hearing testimony, the trial court
found that the wife needs alimony of $900 per month and that the husband
can afford to pay it. Absent a hearing transcript, we assume that the evidence
was sufficient to support the court’s decision, see 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). There are no errors of law on the face of the trial court’s order. The
husband also raises factual issues arising only after the hearing. On appeal,
we consider only evidence and documents presented to the trial court.
Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup. Ct. R. 13.
 This order is without prejudice to seeking relief from the trial court based
upon factual issues arising after the hearing in this case.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2