American Express Centurion Bank v. Maricris Arnoff

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0027, American Express Centurion Bank
v. Maricris Arnoff, the court on June 29, 2018, 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). To the
extent that the plaintiff contends that the defendant is improperly represented by
a non-lawyer, see Sup. Ct. R. 33(2), we note that the defendant signed her brief.
Because the defendant appealed within 30 days of the court’s ruling on the
plaintiff’s timely filed motion to clarify, we reject the plaintiff’s argument that the
appeal is untimely. See Asmussen v. Comm’r, N.H. Dep’t of Safety, 145 N.H.
578, 584-85 (2000); Sup. Ct. R. 7(1)(C). We affirm.

The defendant, Maricris Arnoff (debtor), appeals an order of the Superior
Court (Ignatius, J.) in favor of the plaintiff, American Express Centurion Bank, on
the debtor’s motion to vacate a writ of execution. She contends that the trial
court erred by not allowing her to “‘stack’ exemptions and add the value of the
unused goods and services as defined in [RSA 511:2,] III, VI, VIII, IX, XVI, and
XVII to the $1,000 wildcard exemption” in RSA 511:2, XVIII (2010).

The debtor, as the appealing party, has the burden on appeal to provide a
record that is sufficient to decide the issues she is raising and to demonstrate
that she raised those issues in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151
N.H. 248, 250 (2004); 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).

In this case, the debtor has 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