Lowell Catholic High School v. Criteria II, Ltd.

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0482, Lowell Catholic High School v.

Criteria II, Ltd., the court on April 17, 2019, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs 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, Criteria II, Ltd., appeals the order of the Circuit Court (DeVries, J.) in a small claim case entering judgment for the plaintiff, Lowell Catholic High School, following a hearing on the merits. We construe the defendant’s brief to argue that the trial court’s order is unsupported by the evidence and is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the court erred in its evidentiary rulings and its management of the hearing.

We will uphold the trial court’s decision unless it is unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law, deferring to the trial court’s judgment in evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence presented at trial. See Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003). We review its evidentiary rulings and decisions concerning the management of the hearing for unsustainable exercises of discretion. See Figlioli v. R.J. Moreau Cos., 151 N.H. 618, 626 (2005); In the Matter of Conner & Conner, 156 N.H. 250, 252 (2007).

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, to provide this court with a record sufficient to decide its issues on appeal. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); 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, he shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion.”). The defendant has failed to provide a record, including a transcript of the merits hearing, sufficient for us to review the proceedings in the trial court, including the evidence presented at trial and the trial court’s discretionary judgments. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997) (absent a transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s decision); see also, e.g., Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (rules of appellate practice not relaxed for parties not represented

2

by attorneys). Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant has failed to meet its burden to show that the trial court erred. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox, Clerk