In the Matter of Edward Fallon and Ganna Fallon

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2017-0215, In the Matter of Edward Fallon and
Ganna Fallon, the court on February 16, 2018, issued the
following order:
We consider the husband’s “update to the case” filed on February 1,
2018 to be an untimely reply brief, and waive the requirements of Rule 16
relative to the reply brief. Having considered the brief and reply brief filed by
the husband, Edward Fallon, the memorandum of law filed by the wife, Ganna
Fallon, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is
unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The husband appeals orders
recommended by a hearing officer (Zucker, H.O.) and approved by the Circuit
Court (Carroll, J.) denying, in substantial part, his August 2015 motion to
modify his child support obligation. We affirm.
We will uphold the trial court’s order on a motion to modify a support
obligation absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. In the Matter of
Doherty & Doherty, 168 N.H. 694, 696 (2016). “This means that we review the
record only to determine whether it contains an objective basis to sustain the
trial court’s discretionary judgment[s].” In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers,
154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006). “If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on
the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Brownell & Brownell,
163 N.H. 593, 596 (2012) (quotation omitted). We defer to the trial court on
matters such as “resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility
of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.” In the Matter
of Aube & Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 465 (2009).
The husband’s appellate brief does not contain any developed
arguments. See Sup. Ct. R. 16(3)(d)-(g) (explaining that a supreme court brief
must include argument); see also Mamoud v. Irving Oil Corp., 155 N.H. 405,
406-07 (2008) (dismissing appeal because brief did not comply with Supreme
Court Rule 16). “[I]n 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.” State v. Blackmer, 149
N.H. 47, 49 (2003) (quotation omitted). Under these circumstances, we
conclude that the husband has failed to demonstrate that the trial court
committed reversible error, as was his burden as the appealing party. See
Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2