Christopher Brault & a. v. Walter Fredette

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0672, Christopher Brault & a. v. Walter
Fredette, the court on July 3, 2018, issued the following order:

The respondent’s motion to strike the petitioners’ brief is granted in part
and denied in part. To the extent that the respondent seeks to strike all
references in the petitioners’ brief to issues raised in Case No. 2017-0695,
Christopher Brault & a. v. Walter Fredette & a., the motion is granted.
Otherwise, it is denied.

Having considered the briefs, the memorandum of law, and the portions of
the record properly provided on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is
unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm. In light of this
decision, the petitioners’ motion to use in this case the appendix from Case No.
2017-0694, Walter Fredette v. Christopher Brault & a., a discretionary appeal
that was declined on March 13, 2018, is moot.

The petitioners, Christopher Brault and Candace Brault (tenants), appeal
an order of the Circuit Court (Crocker, J.) in favor of the respondent, Walter
Fredette (landlord), on their petition under RSA 540-A:4 (Supp. 2017). We
construe their brief to argue that the trial court erred by finding that they failed
to establish that the alleged “mold-like smell” in the rental property “had
adversely affected their health” and by not finding that the landlord had violated:
(1) their right to quiet enjoyment, see RSA 540-A:2 (2007); (2) RSA 540-A:3
(Supp. 2017) (prohibiting certain acts in landlord/tenant matters); (3) the
warranty of habitability; (4) RSA chapter 48-A (2012 & Supp. 2017) (pertaining to
municipal enforcement of housing standards); (5) RSA chapter 147 (2005 &
Supp. 2017) (pertaining to municipal health regulations); or (6) RSA chapter 155-
B (2014) (pertaining to hazardous or dilapidated buildings).

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 tenants, as the appealing parties, have the burden on appeal to
provide a record that is sufficient to decide the issues they are raising and to
demonstrate that they raised those issues in the trial court. Id.; see Sup. Ct. R.
13(3), 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 tenants have failed to provide a transcript of the hearing
before the trial court. Accordingly, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to
support the trial court’s determination. Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We review the
trial court’s order for errors of law only, see Atwood, 142 N.H. at 397, and find
none.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2