In the Matter of Tarek Gomaa and Amany Kandil

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0563, In the Matter of Tarek Gomaa and
Amany Kandil, the court on May 2, 2019, issued the following
order:

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

The petitioner, Tarek Gomaa, appeals a final decree of the Circuit Court
(DalPra, M., approved by Introcaso, J.) in his divorce from the respondent,
Amany Kandil. He argues that the trial court erred in its determination of the
value of the marital home by relying upon an estimate offered by the
respondent that she had derived from an internet service, rather than by
ordering the parties to engage, and to share the costs of, an independent
appraiser. He further argues that the trial court erred by granting him weekly
parenting time from Sunday at 5:00 pm until Tuesday at 9:00 am, rather than
at other times that he had requested.

The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning a final divorce decree
and managing the proceedings before it. In the Matter of Spenard & Spenard,
167 N.H. 1, 3 (2014). Its discretion necessarily encompasses decisions
concerning property distribution and parenting rights and responsibilities. See
In the Matter of Conant & Faller, 167 N.H. 577, 582 (2015); Spenard, 167 N.H.
at 3. Its discretion likewise includes whether to consider new evidence
submitted with a motion for reconsideration, or to reopen a matter and allow
the submission of new evidence. See Spenard; 167 N.H. at 3; Lillie-Putz Trust
v. Downeast Energy Corp., 160 N.H. 716, 726 (2010).

We will not overturn the trial court’s rulings on such matters absent an
unsustainable exercise of discretion. Conant, 167 N.H. at 582; Spenard, 167
N.H. at 3; Lillie-Putz Trust, 160 N.H. at 726. This means that we review the
record only to determine whether it contains a sufficient objective basis to
sustain the trial court’s discretionary judgments. Spenard, 167 N.H. at 3. We
defer to the trial court’s judgment in resolving conflicting testimony, evaluating
the credibility of the witnesses, and determining the weight to assign to the
evidence presented at trial. In the Matter of Aube & Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 465
(2009). If the trial court’s findings could reasonably have been made on the
evidence presented at trial, they will stand. Spenard, 167 N.H. at 3.
 It is the burden of the appealing party, here the petitioner, to submit so
much of the record as is sufficient to decide the issues he raises on appeal, and
to demonstrate that he raised those issues in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak
Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (“If the moving
party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or conclusion is
unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he shall include in
the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion.”).
In the absence of a hearing transcript, we assume that the evidence was
sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court, and review the trial
court’s order only for errors of law appearing on the face of the order. Bean,
151 N.H. at 250; Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997).

In this case, the petitioner has not provided a transcript of the final
hearing. The only portions of the record that he has provided consist of: (1) the
trial court’s final decree and related orders; (2) his motion for reconsideration,
which contained evidentiary proffers; (3) the respondent’s objection to the
motion for reconsideration; (4) his “replication” to the objection to his motion
for reconsideration; and (5) the trial court’s order denying the motion for
reconsideration. Under these circumstances, we assume that the evidence
supported the trial court’s decisions, see Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, and we cannot
say, upon this record, that any of the trial court’s decisions amounted to
unsustainable exercises of its discretion.

In light of this order, the petitioner’s motion for an expedited decision is
moot.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2