Truist Bank & a. v. Samson Duclair & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0123, Truist Bank & a. v. Samson Duclair
& a., the court on November 30, 2022, issued the following
order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on
appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct.
R. 20(2). The defendants, Samson Duclair and Paulette Duclair, appeal orders of
the Superior Court (Wageling and Ruoff, JJ.) related to the motion for contempt
and request to increase the defendants’ monthly payment obligation under a
periodic-payments-of-a-judgment order, see RSA 524:6-a (2021), filed by the
plaintiffs, Truist Bank and Branch Banking and Trust Company. We affirm.

We will uphold the trial court’s factual findings and rulings unless they
lack evidentiary support or are legally erroneous. Loon Valley Homeowner's
Ass’n v. Pollock, 171 N.H. 75, 78 (2018). We do not decide whether we would
have ruled differently than the trial court, but, rather, whether a reasonable
person could have reached the same decision based upon the same evidence. Id.
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 to the evidence. Id. It is within the province of the trial court to accept
or reject, in whole or in part, whatever evidence was presented. Id. We review
the trial court’s application of the law to the facts and its legal rulings de novo.
See id.

On appeal, the defendants first argue that the evidence does not support
the trial court’s determination that they have the ability to pay $1,500 per month
to satisfy the outstanding judgment against them. As the appealing parties, the
defendants have the burden of providing us with a record sufficient to decide
their 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). Because the defendants have not provided a transcript of
the December 2021 hearing, we must assume that the evidence at that hearing
supported the trial court’s factual finding regarding their ability to pay.

The defendants next assert that Truist Bank lacks standing to proceed in
this matter because it “is not registered with the New Hampshire Secretary of
State’s Office and . . . has no registered agent or registered agent office in New
Hampshire.” As Truist Bank aptly asserts, however, “[t]he underlying transaction
in this case took place in interstate commerce,” which “constitutes a universally-
recognized exception to the registration requirements.” See RSA 293-
A:15.01(b)(11) (2016).

We have reviewed the defendants’ remaining arguments and conclude that
they are either insufficiently developed for our review, see White v. Auger, 171
N.H. 660, 665 (2019), or lack merit and warrant no further discussion, see Vogel
v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993). The plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and
costs in their brief is denied without prejudice to filing a properly supported
motion for fees pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 which addresses, among
other things, whether fees are due pursuant to the judgment, and establishes the
reasonableness of any fees being sought. See RSA 490:14-a (2010); Sup. Ct. R.
23.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2