THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0694, In the Matter of Sonja Witkowski and Erik Harrsen, the court on June 22, 2020, 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, Erik Harrsen (husband), appeals a final decree of the Circuit Court (Chabot, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner, Sonja Witkowski (wife). Specifically, he challenges a provision of the decree that requires him to deliver a certain motor vehicle to the wife, arguing that: (1) the vehicle was sold to a corporation bearing his name, with the wife’s approval, prior to the divorce decree; (2) the corporation lacks the money necessary to transport the vehicle to the wife; (3) the vehicle’s location is “unknown”; and (4) the order to deliver the vehicle to the wife should have been directed to the corporation.

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). The husband has the 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. 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 husband 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. Accordingly, we assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination. Id. We review the trial court’s order for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none. In light of this order, the wife’s request that we dismiss the appeal is moot.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk