THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0569, In the Matter of John Tierney, III and Patricia Tierney, the court on May 11, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, the memorandum of law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The respondent, Patricia Tierney, appeals a final decree issued by the Circuit Court (Introcaso, J.) in her divorce from the petitioner, John Tierney. See RSA 458:7,:16-a (2004). We construe her brief to argue that the trial court’s division of marital property was not supported by the evidence.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of issues they did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). It is the respondent’s burden on appeal to provide a record that is sufficient to decide the issues she is raising and to demonstrate that she raised those issues in the trial court. Id.; see also Sup. Ct. R. 15(3) (if appealing party intends to argue that a ruling is unsupported by or contrary to the evidence, the party shall include a transcript of all evidence relevant to such ruling). Absent a transcript, we assume the evidence was sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court. Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. These rules are not relaxed for self- represented parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

In this case, the respondent has not supplied a transcript of the hearing before the trial court. Thus, we cannot determine what evidence was offered or what arguments were raised. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. Therefore, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination. Id. Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk