Eastern Inns Condominium Association v. John Ringland

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0515, Eastern Inns Condominium
Association v. John Ringland, 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 defendant, John Ringland, appeals the order of the
Circuit Court (Greenhalgh, J.) granting judgment to the plaintiff, Eastern Inns
Condominium Association, on its claim for past due condominium fees. We
construe the defendant’s brief to argue that he was denied access to certain
records to which he claims he was entitled, by statute and in discovery, as well
as certain property rights, and that he was denied due process. We affirm.

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, 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); 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, the
moving party shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to
such finding or conclusion.”); see also Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147
N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (rules of appellate practice are not relaxed for self-
represented litigants).

The defendant has not provided a transcript of the final hearing. Absent
a transcript, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the
decision reached. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997). Moreover,
the defendant does not provide developed legal arguments, with authorities, to
support his constitutional claims. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49
(2003) (“[I]n the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints
regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument,
is insufficient to warrant judicial review.”) (quotation omitted); see also Keenan
v. Fearon, 130 N.H. 494, 499 (1988) (observing that “off-hand invocations” of
constitutional rights supported by neither argument nor authority warrant no
extended consideration).
 Based on our review of the briefs, the relevant law, the limited record
provided on appeal, and the trial court’s well-reasoned decision, we find the
defendant’s arguments unpersuasive and affirm the trial court’s decision.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2