Ajit Kumar v. Peter Vallieres & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0026, Ajit Kumar v. Peter Vallieres & a.,
the court on September 16, 2019, issued the following order:

The plaintiff’s motion to add a “relevant new and latest” circuit court
decision to the record is denied. On appeal, we consider only evidence and
documents presented to the trial court in connection with the decision being
appealed. Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009); see Sup. Ct. R. 13.
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 plaintiff, Ajit Kumar, appeals the order of the Circuit Court (Leonard,
J.) ruling on his motion for a contempt finding and his request for statutory
damages and other relief pursuant to RSA 540-A:4 (Supp. 2018) for alleged
violations of the landlord and tenant statute. We construe his brief to argue
that the trial court erred in denying the motion.

The record shows that on November 21, 2018, the trial court, following a
hearing on the motion, declined to hold the defendants, Peter Vallieres, Louise
Jackson, and Ann Sacco, in contempt of its “November 7, 2018” order.
Instead, the court ordered the defendants to permit the plaintiff’s inspector to
access the residence on December 5, 2018.

The plaintiff did not provide a copy of his contempt motion to us on
appeal. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250-51 (2004)
(noting that it is the appellant’s burden to provide a record sufficient to address
his issues on appeal); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham,
154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (noting that self-represented litigants are bound by the
same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel). The record
does not contain an order dated November 7, 2018; however, the plaintiff’s
attorney represented at the hearing that the final order was dated October 31,
2018, and that November 7, 2018 was the date of the clerk’s notice. In its
October 31, 2018 order, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to provide the
defendants with at least 24 hours’ notice before seeking access to the premises
for repairs, remediation, or inspection. The record also contains an October
31, 2018 order issued in a separate case, initiated by the defendants, in which
the court found that they had denied the plaintiff reasonable access to the
premises.

To the extent that the plaintiff argues on appeal that the defendants,
after having received the October 31, 2018 orders, thereafter denied him access
to the premises, despite having received the required 24 hours’ notice, we note
that the parties proceeded by offers of proof at the contempt hearing. Factual
issues as to whether and when the defendants had denied the plaintiff access
to the premises were disputed. The contempt power is discretionary, and the
proper inquiry is not whether we would have found the defendants in
contempt, but whether the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion.
In the Matter of Conner & Conner, 156 N.H. 250, 253 (2007). The record does
not compel a finding that the defendants were in contempt. Based upon this
record, we cannot conclude that the trial court unsustainably exercised its
discretion in denying the plaintiff’s contempt motion.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2