National Collegiate Student Loan Trust v. Angela J. Pearson & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0117, National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2006-3 v. Angela J. Pearson & a., the court on September
16, 2019, issued the following order:

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 defendant, Angela J. Pearson (aka Angela Pearson Moore), appeals an
order of the Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) requiring her to make periodic
payments to the plaintiff, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3. She
contends that: (1) the May 3, 2017 order finding her liable to the plaintiff for
monies she borrowed under a 2006 loan agreement was not a final judgment
because she had a co-defendant, against whom the case was subsequently
dismissed, and the order solely against her did not conform to Superior Court
Rule 46(c); and (2) the trial court erred by granting the plaintiff periodic payments
based upon that order. The defendant did not appeal the May 3, 2017 order,
either at the time it was issued or following the dismissal of the claims against
her co-defendant.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of issues
they did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004). 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. Id.; see Sup. Ct. R. 13(3), 15(3) (if appealing
party intends to argue that a ruling is unsupported by or contrary to the
evidence, the party shall include a transcript of all evidence relevant to such
ruling). These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the
Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

In this case, the defendant has not provided a transcript of the trial court’s
hearing on the plaintiff’s petition for periodic payments. Thus, we cannot
determine whether she raised the issue she now appeals to the trial court. The
record reflects that she did include the issue in a motion to reconsider the
periodic payment order. However, because it presented factual issues that would
have required the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing to properly
address her claim and because the defendant made no showing of an inability to
raise the issue at the time of the original hearing, we conclude that the trial court
acted reasonably and within its discretion in declining to address this issue at
that time. See Mt. Valley Mall Assocs. v. Municipality of Conway, 144 N.H. 642,
654-55 (2000) (“It is in the interest of judicial economy to require a party to raise
all possible objections at the earliest possible time . . . .”); Lillie-Putz Trust v.
Downeast Energy Corp., 160 N.H. 716, 726 (2010) (“Whether to receive further
evidence on a motion for reconsideration rests in the sound discretion of the trial
court.”).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2