THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0133, Peter Jones v. Nick Tulloh, the court on October 22, 2020, issued the following order: Having considered the brief filed by the plaintiff, Peter Jones, and the limited record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The plaintiff appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Gardner, J.) finding in favor of the defendant, Nick Tulloh, on the plaintiff’s small claim complaint seeking return of his security deposit and on the defendant’s counterclaim seeking damages for mold remediation. We affirm.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision. We are unable to review his appellate argument substantively because he has failed to provide a sufficient record for our review. As the appealing party, the plaintiff had the burden of providing us with a record sufficient to decide his appellate issues. Bean v. Red Oak Prop.

Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250, (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 13; see also Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (explaining that the rules of appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants). The plaintiff has not provided a transcript of the hearing on the merits nor any documents that may have been submitted as exhibits at that hearing. Absent a complete record, we must assume that the evidence supported the trial court’s decision. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We review the court’s order for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk