In the Matter of Robert Raymond and Kazuko Raymond

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0661, In the Matter of Robert Raymond
and Kazuko Raymond, the court on April 15, 2016, issued the
following order:
Having considered the brief filed by the respondent, Kazuko Raymond,
the memorandum of law filed by the petitioner, Robert Raymond, and the
record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in
this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The respondent appeals the parties’ final
divorce decree recommended by a Marital Master (Rein, M.) and approved by
the Circuit Court (Patten, J.).
We afford trial courts broad discretion in determining matters of property
distribution and alimony when fashioning a final divorce decree. In the Matter
of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002). We will not overturn the trial
court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Id. Moreover,
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 Sawyer & Sawyer, 161 N.H. 11, 18
(2010). “If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence
presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31,
36 (2002).
In his memorandum of law, the petitioner urges us to affirm the trial
court because the respondent has not developed her arguments in which she
purports to challenge the divorce decree, has not demonstrated that she
preserved any of her appellate arguments for our review, and has not provided
this court with a sufficient record to decide her appeal issues. We agree with
the petitioner.
“[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.” Douglas v. Douglas, 143 N.H. 419,
429 (1999) (citation omitted). Although we understand that the respondent is
self-represented in this proceeding, we hold self-represented parties to the
same procedural rules that govern parties represented by counsel. See In the
Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56 (2006).
Moreover, as the appealing party, the respondent has the burden of
providing this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal, as
well as to demonstrate that she raised her issues before the trial court. Bean v.
Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). Without a transcript of the
hearing, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the result
reached by the trial court. Id. Our review in such a case is limited to legal
errors that are apparent on the face of the record. See Atwood v. Owens, 142
N.H. 396, 396-97 (1997). Because the respondent has not developed any
appellate argument demonstrating that the trial court’s decree is legally
erroneous, we affirm. In light of our decision, the petitioner’s motion to strike
the respondent’s reply brief is moot.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2