Richard Benson v. Michael Drewry

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0195, Richard Benson v. Michael Drewry,
the court on October 21, 2020, issued the following order:

Having considered the memorandum of law filed by the plaintiff, Richard
Benson, the brief filed by the defendant, Michael Drewry, and the limited
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.) finding in favor of the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claims
against the defendant related to an unpaid promissory note. We affirm.

On appeal, the defendant 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 defendant 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 trial court
based its decision, in part, upon “the credible testimony” at the hearing on the
merits; however, the defendant has not provided a copy of the transcript of that
hearing as part of the record on appeal. 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