In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols

DecidedOctober 21, 2020

Docket2020-0155

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols (In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols, (N.H. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0155, In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols, the court on October 21, 2020, issued the following order:

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the limited record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The petitioner, Diogenes Blanco, appeals orders of the Circuit Court (Cooper and DalPra, MM., approved by Stephen and Alfano, JJ.) on his parenting petition. We affirm.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision. We are unable to review his appellate argument substantively because he has failed to provide a sufficient record for our review. As the appealing party, the petitioner had the burden of providing us with a record sufficient to decide his appellate issues. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250, (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 13; see also Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (explaining that the rules of appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants). The petitioner has not provided a transcript of the hearing on the merits nor any documents that may have been submitted as exhibits at that hearing. Absent a complete record, we must assume that the evidence supported the trial court’s decision. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We review the court’s orders for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none.

To the extent that the petitioner contends that paragraph II-a of RSA 461-A:12, which was added to the statute in 2018, see RSA 461-A:12, II-a (Supp. 2019), precluded the respondent from relocating to Rhode Island in 2017, we consider his argument insufficiently developed for our review. See Halifax-American Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC, 170 N.H. 569, 574 (2018) (“In 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 and brackets omitted)).

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0155, In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols, the court on October 21, 2020, issued the following order:

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the limited record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The petitioner, Diogenes Blanco, appeals orders of the Circuit Court (Cooper and DalPra, MM., approved by Stephen and Alfano, JJ.) on his parenting petition. We affirm.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision. We are unable to review his appellate argument substantively because he has failed to provide a sufficient record for our review. As the appealing party, the petitioner had the burden of providing us with a record sufficient to decide his appellate issues. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250, (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 13; see also Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (explaining that the rules of appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants). The petitioner has not provided a transcript of the hearing on the merits nor any documents that may have been submitted as exhibits at that hearing. Absent a complete record, we must assume that the evidence supported the trial court’s decision. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We review the court’s orders for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none.

To the extent that the petitioner contends that paragraph II-a of RSA 461-A:12, which was added to the statute in 2018, see RSA 461-A:12, II-a (Supp. 2019), precluded the respondent from relocating to Rhode Island in 2017, we consider his argument insufficiently developed for our review. See Halifax-American Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC, 170 N.H. 569, 574 (2018) (“In 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 and brackets omitted)).

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-diogenes-blanco-and-elinol-bunols-nh-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack