In the Matter of Tracy LaCombe and Jason LaCombe

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0195, In the Matter of Tracy LaCombe and
Jason LaCombe, the court on January 18, 2019, issued the
following order:

To the extent that the respondent moves, through requests in his brief, to
dismiss the appeal or to strike the petitioner’s statement of facts and questions
presented, that motion is denied.

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 petitioner, Tracy LaCombe (wife), appeals a final order by the Circuit
Court (Chabot, J.) in her divorce from the respondent, Jason LaCombe
(husband). We construe her brief to contend that the trial court erred by: (1)
finding her in default and “precluding [her] from providing any information at [the
final] hearing which would have been discoverable had she complied with Rule
1.25-A and provided interrogatory answers and documents as requested”; (2) not
conducting a “full trial” or allowing her to cross-examine the husband and his
financial documents; (3) dividing the marital assets allegedly unequally; (4) not
valuing the parties’ respective businesses and dividing them equally; (5) not
finding that the husband understated his income; (6) ordering her to repay the
husband child support overage that she alleges he did not pay; (7) not reviewing
“the fraudulent misleadings of [the husband] and his attorney”; (8) accepting the
husband’s counsel’s representations regarding the wife’s failure to comply with
discovery requests and her finances “without giving [her] the opportunity to prove
otherwise”; (9) not addressing post-secondary education expenses for the parties’
children, but see RSA 461-A:14, V (Supp. 2018) (precluding court from requiring
parent to contribute to adult child’s college expenses); (10) denying her request
for alimony; (11) not requiring the husband to carry life insurance; (12) finding
that the parties had equally divided the marital personal property; (13) not
compelling the husband to comply with the court’s order that he return personal
property that he removed from the marital home; (14) not awarding her a portion
of the bank account of an entity controlled by the husband; (15) not dividing pre-
petition debt in her name that was attributable to medical services for the
children; (16) including a timeshare that she purchased after she petitioned for
divorce as a marital asset, but not including a snowmobile that the husband
purchased after the petition; (17) ordering her to pay the husband’s attorney’s
fees in connection with a motion to stay she had filed on the basis of the
husband’s alleged perjury; (18) not ordering a new hearing because her attorney
allegedly committed malpractice; and (19) violating her right to due process.
 The wife, 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 Fam. Div. R. 1.26(F) (“To preserve issues for an appeal
to the Supreme Court, an appellant must have given the Court the opportunity to
consider such issues.”). 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 wife has failed to provide a transcript of the hearing before
the trial court. Although the wife contends that “most of the issues [she] has
raised [on appeal] can be seen in the final decree or documents and motions
submitted by either party,” we are unable to identify the parties’ arguments fully
or the trial court’s rulings upon them simply by reference to the decree and
pleadings. We note that: (1) the trial court stated that it denied the wife’s motion
to reconsider its denial of her motion to vacate the default finding from the
bench; and (2) the wife represented that “there w[ere] extensive discussions at the
Pretrial [conference] regarding . . . discovery issues.” 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