Alexander J. Walker, Jr. v. Michael Gill & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0233, Alexander J. Walker, Jr. v. Michael
Gill & a., the court on February 7, 2019, issued the following
order:

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

The defendants, Michael Gill and The Mortgage Specialists, Inc., appeal
the order of the Superior Court (Delker, J.), following a bench trial, awarding
the plaintiff, Alexander J. Walker, Jr., damages for defamation.

As an initial matter, we note that the defendants’ brief contains no
statement of questions presented for review; nor does it contain specific
references to any portion of the record where issues the defendants seek to
raise on appeal were first raised in the trial court. See Sup. Ct. R. 16(3).
“The statement of questions presented, along with specific references to the
record, provide evidence of preservation of the issues for appeal and apprise
the [plaintiff] and the court of the issues presented on appeal.” Mahmoud v.
Irving Oil Corp., 155 N.H. 405, 406 (2007); 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 defendants’ brief does not identify the issues on appeal. Even
assuming, without deciding, that the defendants’ brief could be construed to
identify the issues on appeal, the defendants have failed to provide a record
sufficient to address any such issues or to show that they raised their issues in
the trial court. It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial
review of matters that were not properly raised in the trial court. Thompson v.
D’Errico, 163 N.H. 20, 22 (2011). 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
defendants’ burden as the appellants to provide this court with a record
sufficient to decide their issues on appeal and to demonstrate that they raised
their issues in the trial court. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250-51 (2004). The record in this case fails to demonstrate that the defendants
raised their issues in the trial court.
 Additionally, we consider on appeal only evidence and documents
presented to the trial court. Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009);
see Sup. Ct. R. 13. The record in this case fails to show that the documents in
the defendants’ appendix were presented to the trial court.

Furthermore, the defendants’ brief contains no developed legal
arguments with citations to relevant authorities. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (we confine our review to issues that have been fully
briefed). Accordingly, we conclude that the defendants have failed to meet their
burden to show that the trial court committed reversible error. See Gallo v.
Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).

Affirmed.

Lynn, C.J., and Donovan, J., concurred; Smukler, J., retired superior
court justice, specially assigned under RSA 490:3, concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2