In re Estate of John Edwin Harrica

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0276, In re Estate of John Edwin Harrica,
the court on April 1, 2019, issued the following order:

The petitioner’s motion to allow her to file affidavits and incorporate them
into her reply brief is denied. On appeal, we consider only evidence and
documents presented to the trial court. Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387
(2009); see Sup. Ct. R. 13. Having considered the briefs, 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 petitioner, Antonia Dawson, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
(Weaver, J.) denying her petition for an order declaring her to be the common
law spouse of the decedent, John Edward Harrica. See RSA 457:39 (2018)
(“Persons cohabiting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and
generally reputed to be such, for the period of 3 years, and until the decease of
one of them, shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married.”). The
petitioner argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to continue
the hearing on her petition so that she could introduce documentary evidence
and call witnesses whose testimony would assist her in proving her case.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of
matters not raised in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H.
248, 250 (2004). It is the burden of the appealing party, here the petitioner, to
provide this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal, as
well as to demonstrate that she raised her issues in the trial court. Id.; see
also State v. Porter, 144 N.H. 96, 100-01 (1999) (rules of preservation are not
relaxed for self-represented parties). Here, the record fails to show that the
petitioner requested a continuance in the trial court. Nor does the record show
that she objected to the introduction of the opposing parties’ evidence, or that
the matter had been scheduled for a non-evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we
find no error. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250-51.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk