The appellant, Attorney Barbara Hann, appeals an order of the probate court relative to the guardian's second and final accounting. She argues that the probate court erred in failing to order that the guardianship remain open to allow for payment of her legal fees.
It is the burden of the appealing party to provide this court with a record sufficient to decide her issues on appeal and to demonstrate that she raised them before the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). Having considered the issue addressed in the appellant's brief, her representations at oral argument and the limited record before us, we affirm the decision of the probate court. The appellant represented at oral argument that since filing the appeal, she had received further payment of her fees and that the only remaining issue was whether she was owed an additional $1200. The trial court made no finding that the appellant was owed an additional $1200; nor does the record before us compel such a finding. The appellant has presented no evidence that she filed a request for such a finding or that she filed a motion for reconsideration following the trial court's order. See State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 48-49 (2003) (discussing rules of preservation of issue for appellate review); Starr v. Governor, 151 N.H. 608, 611 (2004) (claims of error in trial court ruling may be brought to its attention in motion for reconsideration). Accordingly, we will not consider it on appeal.
Much of the appellant's presentation at oral argument addressed the statutory framework governing guardianship proceedings; she argued that the reporting requirements should include further disclosure of debt. Such matters of public policy, however, are reserved for the legislature, and we therefore leave to it the task of addressing the plaintiff's concerns. See Cloutier v. City of Berlin, 154 N.H. __, __, 907 A.2d. 955, 963 (2006).
DUGGAN, GALWAY and HICKS, JJ., ...