THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0330, Town of Hampton v. Thomas L. Morgenstern, the court on February 19, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The defendant, Thomas Morgenstern, appeals an order of the Superior Court (McHugh, J.) in favor of the plaintiff, the Town of Hampton (town). He argues that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing a civil penalty of $550 per day when he contends that the town issued only one notice of violation, see RSA 676:17, I (Supp. 2014); and (2) failing to find that the town’s claims were barred by equitable estoppel and laches.

The appellant has the burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to demonstrate that the issues on appeal have been raised before the trial court. Town of Atkinson v. Malborn Realty Trust, 164 N.H. 62, 69 (2012). The trial court must have had the opportunity to consider any issues asserted by the appellant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this preservation requirement, any issues which could not have been presented to the trial court prior to its decision must be presented to it in a motion for reconsideration. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(e); see N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002). These rules are not relaxed for self-represented parties. See In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56-57 (2006).

Because the defendant has not demonstrated that he preserved for our review his arguments regarding equitable estoppel, laches, or calculation of the civil penalty, we decline to address them. See Malborn Realty, 164 N.H. at 69-70.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox, Clerk