Scott Eaton v. Craig Shealy ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                     THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    SUPREME COURT
    In Case No. 2015-0422, Scott Eaton v. Craig Shealy, the
    court on December 21, 2015, 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, Craig Shealy, appeals the order of the Circuit Court
    (Patten, J.) entering a small claim judgment for the plaintiff, Scott Eaton, in the
    amount of $7,500 plus costs and interest, for unpaid rent and damage to the
    plaintiff’s premises.
    Complaints regarding adverse rulings by the trial court without
    developed legal argument are insufficient to warrant judicial review. State v.
    Blackmer, 
    149 N.H. 47
    , 49 (2003). 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. 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.”). Self-represented litigants are bound by the
    same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel. In the
    Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 
    154 N.H. 51
    , 56 (2006).
    In this case, the defendant’s brief contains no developed legal argument
    or citations to supporting legal authority. Moreover, his brief challenges the
    trial court’s factual findings based upon evidence presented at a hearing, and
    he has failed to provide a transcript of the 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). We review the trial court’s
    decision for errors of law only, see 
    id. at 397
    , and find none.
    Affirmed.
    Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
    Eileen Fox,
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-0422

Filed Date: 12/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/12/2024