Peter Jones v. Nick Tulloh

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0133, Peter Jones v. Nick Tulloh, the
court on October 22, 2020, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief filed by the plaintiff, Peter Jones, and the
limited record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is
unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The plaintiff appeals an order of
the Circuit Court (Gardner, J.) finding in favor of the defendant, Nick Tulloh, on
the plaintiff’s small claim complaint seeking return of his security deposit and on
the defendant’s counterclaim seeking damages for mold remediation. We affirm.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the trial court’s decision. We are unable to review his appellate
argument substantively because he has failed to provide a sufficient record for
our review. As the appealing party, the plaintiff had the burden of providing us
with a record sufficient to decide his appellate issues. Bean v. Red Oak Prop.
Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250, (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 13; see also Town of
Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (explaining that the rules of
appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants). The plaintiff has
not provided a transcript of the hearing on the merits nor any documents that
may have been submitted as exhibits at that hearing. Absent a complete record,
we must assume that the evidence supported the trial court’s decision. See
Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We review the court’s order for errors of law only, see
Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk