Jeffrey Blackman v. Karen Hoglund & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0004, Jeffrey Blackman v. Karen Hoglund
& a., the court on May 17, 2023, 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 plaintiff, Jeffrey Blackman, appeals a decision of the
Circuit Court (Swegart, J.), following a hearing on the merits, entering
judgment in favor of the defendants, Karen Hoglund and Peter Hoglund, on the
plaintiff’s small claim seeking damages for breach of a contract for painting
services. In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial court found that: (1) the
plaintiff had not satisfied his implied obligation to perform the contracted-for
work in a workmanlike manner, see Norton v. Burleaud, 115 N.H. 435, 436
(1975), thereby discharging the defendants’ obligations under the contract, see
Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 724-25 (1993); and (2) at the time that the
defendants terminated the contract, they paid the plaintiff $500. We construe
the plaintiff’s brief to challenge these findings, and affirm.

Whether the plaintiff performed in a workmanlike manner or materially
breached the contract are factual determinations for the trial court to make.
See Found. for Seacoast Health v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 165 N.H. 168, 181
(2013); Fitz, 136 N.H. at 724-25. We will uphold the trial court’s factual
findings and legal rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or constitute
clear error of law. Found. for Seacoast Health, 165 N.H. at 181. It is the
burden of the appealing party, here the plaintiff, to provide a record sufficient
to decide the issues raised on appeal, and absent a trial transcript, we assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. Bean v.
Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). In this case, the plaintiff has
not provided a transcript of the hearing on the merits. Accordingly, we assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings that the
plaintiff performed the contracted-for work in a deficient manner and that the
defendants paid him $500.

We note that the plaintiff has attached to his brief certain
correspondence between the parties that postdates the filing of this appeal and,
thus, was not considered by the trial court. Those documents are not properly
before this court, and we have not considered them in deciding this appeal.
See Flaherty v. Dixey, 158 N.H. 385, 387 (2009) (“On appeal, we consider only
evidence and documents presented to the trial court.”).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2