Allen Williamson v. Zen Braccio

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0159, Allen Williamson v. Zen Braccio, the
court on November 28, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief 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 defendant, Zen Braccio, appeals the order of the Circuit Court (Kelly,
J.) entering a default judgment for the plaintiff, Allen Williamson, for the
defendant’s failure to answer a small claim complaint.

The defendant filed his appeal more than two years after the trial court’s
order. This court accepted the appeal, but ordered the defendant to address
the timeliness of his appeal in his brief. On appeal, the defendant argues that
the trial court erred in entering judgment against him because, he alleges, he
did not receive proper notice of the small claim hearing. He further argues
that, if the trial court heard the case on its merits, he would prevail.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of
matters not raised in the trial court. Thompson v. D’Errico, 163 N.H. 20, 22
(2011); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56
(2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that
govern parties represented by counsel). The purpose of this preservation
requirement is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct an error it may
have made. In the Matter of Mannion & Mannion, 155 N.H. 52, 54 (2007). It is
the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, to provide this court
with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal, as well as to
demonstrate that he raised his issues in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop.
Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004).

The record shows that the defendant appeared at a post-judgment
hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for contempt. However, the record fails to
show that the defendant raised in the trial court his notice and merits
arguments. Because the defendant has failed to demonstrate that he preserved
his issues for review, we decline to address them on appeal. See id. at 250-51.
The issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal but not addressed in his
brief are waived. See Brunelle v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 161 N.H. 64, 69 (2010).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2