Alyssa Pittera v. Taylor Mauck

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0242, Alyssa Pittera v. Taylor Mauck, the
court on February 25, 2021, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs, memorandum of law, and record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See
Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The defendant, Taylor Mauck, appeals the order of the
Circuit Court (LeFrancois, J.) in an action brought by the plaintiff, Alyssa
Pittera, for damages under RSA 540-A:4 (Supp. 2020). The defendant
challenges the trial court’s finding that he locked the plaintiff out of the leased
premises in violation of RSA 540-A:3, II (Supp. 2020), and its damage award of
$1,000 pursuant to RSA 540-A:4, IX(a), plus costs of $79.31. We affirm.

We will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings on appeal unless
they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law. Lane v.
Barletta, 172 N.H. 674, 676 (2019); see RSA 540-A:4, V (Supp. 2020). We
review questions of law de novo. Lane v. Barletta, 172 N.H. at 677. In this
case, the trial court found that the defendant violated RSA 540-A:3, II, which
provides: “No landlord shall willfully seize, hold, or otherwise directly or
indirectly deny a tenant access to and possession of such tenant’s rented or
leased premises, other than through proper judicial process.”

This dispute relates to the defendant’s property in Northwood, which the
defendant leased to the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant argues that there
was no residential lease agreement between himself and the plaintiff, that the
property was a “shared facility” as defined by RSA 540-B:1 (2007), and that the
property was a single-family home in which he was the primary resident. For
each of these reasons, he argues, the trial court erred in awarding damages
under RSA 540-A:4, IX(a).

The defendant’s brief does not contain references to the record to show
that he raised his issues in the trial court. To the extent that he raised issues
of law in his motion to dismiss, he did not provide copies of his motion or the
trial court’s order on his motion for our review. The appealing party has the
burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to decide his issues on
appeal and to demonstrate that he raised his issues in the trial court. See
Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250-51 (2004); see also In the
Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented
litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties
represented by counsel).
 To the extent that the defendant challenges the trial court’s factual
findings, we will affirm the trial court’s findings if they are reasonably
supported by the record. Lane v. Barletta, 172 N.H. at 676-77. The trial court
found that, for purposes of RSA 540-A:3, II, the defendant was a “landlord,” the
plaintiff was a “tenant,” and that, on September 8, 2019, the defendant denied
the plaintiff access to her leased premises, without legal authority, by locking
the entrance door to the building. Although there was conflicting evidence, we
defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the
testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight
to be given evidence. O’Malley v. Little, 170 N.H. 272, 275 (2017). Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that it reasonably supports the trial court’s
findings, and that the court’s order contains no legal error. See Lane v.
Barletta, 172 N.H. at 676-77.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2