Carter v. Frenette

Maine Superior

Carter v. Frenette

DecidedJanuary 5, 2004

DocketYORap-03-051

StatusUnpublished

This text of Carter v. Frenette (Carter v. Frenette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Frenette, (Me. Super. Ct. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-03-051 fas My . | yxy} oR OPO ‘ % ONDE GLENN CARTER, JR., Plaintiff y, RDE . ORDER BONALIL © LAY PHILIP FRENETTE, VAN 30 2004 Defendant

This is an appeal from a Small Claims judgment in favor of Mr. Carter. Following hearing on December 30, 2003, the appeal is Denied.

Mr. Carter complained that Mr. Frenette made certain mis-representations concerning the septic system on Property he bought from Mr. Frenette. After hearing the District Court awarded $4, 500. 00, plus costs to Mr. Carter. Mr. Frenette appeals generally, but specifically argues that Mr. Carter’s claim exceeded the Small Claims jurisdictional limit. This argument is based on an estimate in the District Court file for septic repairs which totaled $4,620.00, which exceeds the $4,500.00 Small Claims limit.

The difficulty with this argument is that Mr. Carter’s complaint seeks only $4,500.00 and the judgment is for $4,500.00. On the face of the record the jurisdictional limit has not been exceeded. Without a more complete record of the proceedings in the District Court, it cannot be determined whether the claim exceeded the limit or not. As the appellant, Mr. Frenette has the obligation to produce an adequate record for appeal.

oothbay Register, Inc. v. Murphy, 415 A.2d 1079 (Me. 1980), Flaving failed to do so, his appeal must fail. At the direction of the Court, this Order shall be incorporated into the docket by reference. Rule 79(a). Dated: January 5, 2004 S Lith s G. Artkur Brennan

Glenn Carter, Jr. (PL) - pro se Justice, Superior Court Michael J. O'Toole, Esq. - DEF

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-03-051 fas My . | yxy} oR OPO ‘ % ONDE GLENN CARTER, JR., Plaintiff y, RDE . ORDER BONALIL © LAY PHILIP FRENETTE, VAN 30 2004 Defendant

This is an appeal from a Small Claims judgment in favor of Mr. Carter. Following hearing on December 30, 2003, the appeal is Denied.

Mr. Carter complained that Mr. Frenette made certain mis-representations concerning the septic system on Property he bought from Mr. Frenette. After hearing the District Court awarded $4, 500. 00, plus costs to Mr. Carter. Mr. Frenette appeals generally, but specifically argues that Mr. Carter’s claim exceeded the Small Claims jurisdictional limit. This argument is based on an estimate in the District Court file for septic repairs which totaled $4,620.00, which exceeds the $4,500.00 Small Claims limit.

The difficulty with this argument is that Mr. Carter’s complaint seeks only $4,500.00 and the judgment is for $4,500.00. On the face of the record the jurisdictional limit has not been exceeded. Without a more complete record of the proceedings in the District Court, it cannot be determined whether the claim exceeded the limit or not. As the appellant, Mr. Frenette has the obligation to produce an adequate record for appeal.

oothbay Register, Inc. v. Murphy, 415 A.2d 1079 (Me. 1980), Flaving failed to do so, his appeal must fail. At the direction of the Court, this Order shall be incorporated into the docket by reference. Rule 79(a). Dated: January 5, 2004 S Lith s G. Artkur Brennan

Glenn Carter, Jr. (PL) - pro se Justice, Superior Court Michael J. O'Toole, Esq. - DEF

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carter v. Frenette, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-frenette-mesuperct-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack