In the Matter of Keri-Ann Hopps-Geoffroy and Jordan Geoffroy

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0168, In the Matter of Keri-Ann Hopps-
Geoffroy and Jordan Geoffroy, the court on January 11, 2024,
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 respondent, Jordan Geoffroy, appeals the final decree
entered by the Circuit Court (Hall, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner, Keri-
Ann Hopps-Geoffroy, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) holding him solely
responsible for debts relating to the parties’ business; (2) ordering him to pay
child support; (3) not awarding him equal parenting time; and (4) ordering him
to pay the petitioner $2,000 for personal property he destroyed.

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the respondent, to provide
this court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal. See Bean v.
Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 13. Each
of the issues raised by the respondent contains factual components and
challenges the weight given by the trial court to the evidence presented. See
Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (“If the moving party intends to argue in the supreme court
that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to
the evidence, he shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant
to such finding or conclusion.”).

Absent a transcript of the January 20, 2023 final hearing, we must
assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the decision reached. See
Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997); see also, e.g., Town of Nottingham
v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (rules of appellate practice not relaxed
for self-represented litigants). Accordingly, we review the trial court’s decision
for errors of law only, see Atwood, 142 N.H. at 397, and find none.

In addition, we note that the respondent’s brief contains no developed
legal arguments. We have consistently held that judicial review is not
warranted for complaints regarding adverse rulings without developed legal
arguments. See, e.g., Anna H. Cardone Revocable Trust v. Cardone, 160 N.H.
521, 526 (2010).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2