Chester Rogers v. James Confalone

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0146, Chester Rogers v. James Confalone,
the court on September 16, 2019, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief filed by the defendant, James Confalone, and
the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is
unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The defendant appeals an
order of the Circuit Court (Leonard, J.) entering judgment in favor of the
plaintiff, Chester Rogers, on the plaintiff’s small claim seeking payment for a
real estate appraisal he prepared for the defendant. We affirm.

The trial court recited the following facts in its order. The defendant
retained the plaintiff’s services to appraise land in Big Moose Township, Maine.
Under their written agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff $4,000
for his services and 18% per annum interest. After the plaintiff completed the
appraisal, the defendant refused to pay the agreed-upon amount because the
plaintiff prepared the appraisal without visiting the property.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant to recover payment for his
services. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which the plaintiff
testified that he informed the defendant that he would be unable to visit the
property and that, under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice, it is acceptable to appraise a property without personally visiting it.
The plaintiff also stood by his appraisal of the property. At the hearing, the
defendant asserted that the appraised value was too low because the plaintiff
failed to visit the property and that the plaintiff took an unreasonable period of
time to complete the appraisal.

The trial court found that the parties agreed to the terms of the contract,
that the plaintiff completed the appraisal in accordance with industry
practices, that the parties had not agreed in writing that the appraisal would
be completed on a date certain, and that the plaintiff did not take an
unreasonable period of time to complete the appraisal. The court observed that
the defendant “is unhappy with the appraised value of the property and does
not want to pay the plaintiff’s invoice for services.” The court ruled in favor of
the plaintiff, concluding that he “is now entitled to be paid for his services.”

We will uphold the trial court’s findings and rulings unless they are not
supported by the evidence or are legally erroneous. Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H.
774, 780 (2003). Our standard of review is not whether we would rule
differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could have
reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same evidence. Id.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court misjudged the
parties’ relative credibility and failed to afford sufficient weight to certain
evidence. However, we defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as
resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and
determining the weight to be given to the evidence. Id.

To the extent that the defendant asserts that the evidence does not
support the trial court’s factual findings, we observe that he has failed to
provide a sufficient record for our review. It is the burden of the appealing
party, here the defendant, to provide this court with a record sufficient to
decide his issues on appeal. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 13. The defendant has not met this burden by,
for instance, providing, as part of the appellate record, the transcript of
evidentiary hearing on the merits held on January 15, 2019. Absent a
sufficient record, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support
the trial court’s decision. See Rix v. Kinderworks Corp., 136 N.H. 548, 553
(1992).

Moreover, to the extent that the defendant argues that the trial court
misinterpreted the parties’ written contract, he has not provided a copy of it for
our review. As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of
demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the defendant’s
challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that he has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2