Thе plaintiff, Claudette Bean, brought a small claims action for return of a security deposit paid to the defendant, Red Oak Property Management, Inc. The Manchester District Court (Emery, J.) entered judgment for the defendant. We affirm.
The plaintiff and her fiancé rented an apartment from the defendant. Prior to the expiration of their one-year lease, thе plaintiff notified the defendant that they would be moving out of the apartment, which they did at the end of Novеmber 2001. By letter dated December 7, 2001, the defendant informed the plaintiff of outstanding charges for unpaid rent, cleaning and advertising that totaled $595.00. In light of these outstanding charges, the defendant indicated that it was retaining the plaintiffs security deposit of $595.00.
The plaintiff brought a small claims action for return of the security deposit. A hearing was scheduled for March 28, 2003. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant did not appear. The record, however, contains a motion for continuance, filed by the plaintiff, on March 28, 2003. Therеafter, a hearing was held on December 11, 2003. No transcript of that hearing has been provided to this court. Following the hearing, the district court entered judgment for the defendant.
The plaintiff filed a timely noticе of appeal with this court. Under our new appellate rules, which took effect on January 1, 2004, thе plaintiffs appeal is a “mandatory” appeal. A timely-filed mandatory appeal is automatically accepted by the court for review on the merits. See Sup. CT. R. 3. Question twelve on the noticе of appeal form filed by the plaintiff asks whether a transcript of the trial court proceеdings is necessary for this appeal. In response, the plaintiff answered “No.” Consistent with that answer, the plaintiff did not fill out the transcript order form on page four of the notice of appeal form. Accordingly, the clerk of court issued an order on February 4, 2004, accepting the case and ordering thе parties to file briefs, and no transcript of the district court proceedings was ordered to be prepared.
It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of matters not raised in the forum of triаl. N. Country Envtl. Servs. v. Town of Bethlehem,
With respect to the plaintiff’s first issue on appeal, the record before this court does not demonstrate that the plaintiff requested a default judgment on March 28,2003, when thе plaintiff alleges that the defendant did not appear for a scheduled hearing, or that the plаintiff objected to the trial court holding a hearing on the merits on December 11, 2003. To the contrary, the рlaintiff herself filed a motion to continue on March 28, 2003. Accordingly, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that shе raised this issue below.
Similarly, because the plaintiff failed to provide a transcript of the hearing, shе has also failed to demonstrate that she raised her remaining issues before the trial court. Furthermorе, to the extent that the plaintiff argues that the evidence did not support the charges for unpaid rеnt, cleaning and advertising alleged by the defendant in its December 7, 2001 letter, we are unable to review the trial court’s findings, again because of the lack of a transcript; we must assume that the evidence wаs sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court. See Atwood,
This case demonstrates that the adoption of new appellate rules has not obviated the necessity for appealing parties to consider carefully whether to order a transcript of trial court proceedings. We reitеrate here what is
Affirmed.