THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0619, MMG Insurance Company v. Shaban Beqiri, the court on March 31, 2016, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs, 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.

At the outset, the defendant’s motion to file his reply brief is granted.

The defendant, Shaban Beqiri, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Michael, J.), in favor of the plaintiff, MMG Insurance Company, in its subrogation action against him. He contends that: (1) the trial court’s order was unsupported by the evidence; (2) the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact; and (3) the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony.

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 appealing party’s burden on appeal to provide a record that is sufficient to decide the issues he is raising and to demonstrate that he raised those issues in the trial court. Id.; see Sup. Ct. R. 13(3), 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, and review its order for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997). 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 defendant 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. We further assume that the trial court made all subsidiary findings necessary to support its general finding that the defendant caused the accident. See Nordic Inn Condo. Owners’ Assoc. v. Ventullo, 151 N.H. 571, 586 (2004). We find no errors of law in the trial court’s order. Issues raised in the notice of appeal, but not briefed, are waived. Lakes Region Gaming v. Miller, 164 N.H. 558, 562 (2013).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox, Clerk

2