Jack E. Lussier v. Meredith Brodeur

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2024-0120, Jack E. Lussier v. Meredith
Brodeur, the court on October 15, 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, Meredith Brodeur, appeals the order of the
Superior Court (Honigberg, J.), following a bench trial, granting the petition to
quiet title filed by the petitioner, Jack E. Lussier, and denying the relief
requested in the respondent’s counterclaim. The respondent argues that the
trial court erred in: (1) failing to rule on her claim for adverse possession; and
(2) finding the evidence insufficient to support claims of adverse possession
and boundary by acquiescence. We affirm.

The respondent first argues that she raised two claims, boundary by
acquiescence and adverse possession, and that the trial court erred by ruling
on only one of her claims, boundary by acquiescence. See O’Hearne v.
McClammer, 163 N.H. 490, 435-36 (2012) (distinguishing boundary by
acquiescence and adverse possession). It is the burden of the appealing party,
here the respondent, to provide this court with a record sufficient to decide her
issues on appeal, and to demonstrate that she raised her issues in the trial
court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Town
of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (rules of appellate practice
not relaxed for self-represented litigants). In its order on the merits, the trial
court noted that although “[t]he [r]espondent allege[d] no formal counts in her
[c]ounterclaim,” it construed her counterclaim to allege a claim of trespass.
The court also noted that, at the bench trial, the respondent asserted a further
claim for boundary by acquiescence. After considering the evidence presented
at trial, the court ruled that the respondent failed to meet her burden to prove
her claims of trespass and boundary by acquiescence. The court’s order does
not mention any claim of adverse possession.

The respondent has not provided us with a copy of her counterclaim.
Nor has she provided us with a copy of any motion for reconsideration notifying
the trial court of its alleged error. The trial court must have had the
opportunity to consider any issues raised by the appellant on appeal; thus, to
satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues which could not have been
presented to the trial court prior to its decision must be presented to it in a
motion for reconsideration. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(e); see N.H. Dep’t of
Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002). We conclude that the
respondent has not provided a record showing that she raised her issue in the
trial court, and we therefore decline to address it. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250.

The respondent next argues that the evidence supported her claims of
adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence. The respondent has not
provided a transcript of the trial. See id.; see also 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.”). Absent a transcript, we must assume that the
evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. See Atwood v.
Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997). Accordingly, we find no error.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2