In the Matter of Paula Dill and James Scrivens

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0415, In the Matter of Paula Dill and
James Scrivens, the court on July 1, 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 petitioner, Paula Dill, appeals the final decree entered
by the Circuit Court (Mace, J.) in her divorce from the respondent, James
Scrivens, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) including, as part of the
marital estate, debt incurred by the respondent after the parties’ separation;
and (2) denying her request for reimbursement of health care costs.

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the petitioner, to provide this
court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal. See Bean v. Red
Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 13(2) (“The
moving party shall be responsible for ensuring that all or such portions of the
record relevant and necessary for the court to decide the questions of law
presented by the case are in fact provided to the supreme court.”). We note
that the petitioner is self-represented on appeal; however, our rules of appellate
practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants. See Town of Nottingham
v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001).

Except for certain court orders, and documents relating to health
insurance costs and an education loan, the petitioner has not provided a
record of the trial court proceedings. Absent a transcript of the 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). Accordingly, we
review the trial court’s decree for errors of law only, see Atwood, 142 N.H. at
397, and find none.

Affirmed.

Hantz Marconi, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk