Carlos Santos v. Zenandre Braccio

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Decided: November 28, 2018
• Docket: 2018-0160
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0160, Carlos Santos v. Zenandre Braccio, the court on November 28, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief and limited record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Zenandre Braccio, appeals the order of the Circuit Court (Quigley, J.) entering a default judgment for the plaintiff, Carlos Santos, for the defendant’s failure to appear for a small claim hearing.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment against him because, he alleges, he did not receive timely, proper notice of the hearing. He further argues that, if the trial court heard the case on its merits, he would prevail. The defendant asserts that he raised these issues in the trial court in his request for a new trial, motion to amend, and motion to reconsider, all of which the court denied.

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, as well as to demonstrate that he raised his issues in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel). In this case, the defendant has failed to provide copies of his request for a new trial, motion to amend, or motion to reconsider. The appellate record consists solely of the trial court’s notice of decision. Because the defendant has failed to provide a record sufficient to decide his issues and to demonstrate that he raised them in the trial court, we decline to address them on appeal. See id. at 250-51.

The issues raised in the defendant’s notice of appeal but not addressed in his brief are waived. See Brunelle v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 161 N.H. 64, 69 (2010).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox, Clerk