Supreme Court
No. 2024-324-Appeal. (KD 24-332)
Future Contracting & Estimators, : LLC
v. :
Maelee Allen, Alias, et al. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email: opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court
No. 2024-324-Appeal. (KD 24-332)
Future Contracting & Estimators, : LLC
v. :
Maelee Allen, Alias, et al. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Goldberg, for the Court. The self-represented defendant, Maelee
Allen (defendant or Allen), appeals from a Superior Court order denying and
dismissing her District Court appeal following a bench trial.1 This matter came
before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and
show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.
After examining the memoranda and arguments presented by the parties, we
1 According to the notice of appeal, there are two named defendants—Maelee Allen and William Culpepper; however, only Allen paid an appeal filing fee in the Superior Court. Accordingly, Allen is the only appellant properly before this Court for purposes of appeal. -1- conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this
time. We affirm the order of the Superior Court.
Facts and Travel
The plaintiff, Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC (plaintiff or Future
Contracting), initiated this action in the Third Division District Court on October
25, 2023, by filing a civil book account action seeking payment of $3,100 plus
statutory interest from defendant for plaintiff’s “estimating services for damages”
regarding defendant’s property located at 8 Warren Avenue in North Providence,
Rhode Island (the property). A judge of the District Court entered judgment in
favor of plaintiff on April 9, 2024. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal to
the Superior Court on April 11, 2024.
The parties appeared before a justice of the Superior Court (the trial justice)
for a bench trial on May 10, 2024, and June 7, 2024.2 On July 19, 2024, the trial
justice issued a bench decision in favor of plaintiff, which was memorialized in a
written decision. As noted by the trial justice, plaintiff alleged that it had a contract
with defendant for estimating work, and, thereafter, plaintiff sent an invoice for
$3,100 for services. The trial justice recounted that in her answer to the complaint,
2 Although the Superior Court docket indicates a bench trial was held on May 10, 2024, no transcript from this hearing date was provided to this Court. Therefore, our review is limited to the June 7, 2024 transcript, the trial justice’s July 19, 2024 bench decision, and the trial justice’s written decision. The parties also appeared before the trial justice on May 24, 2024, to discuss a scheduling issue. -2- defendant asserted she had never signed a contract with plaintiff for any repairs to
the property and that she purportedly was told by an employee of plaintiff that she
would not be charged unless a formal appraisal was needed.
In his written decision, the trial justice noted that, during the May 10, 2024
hearing, plaintiff’s managing member, Ralph Catallozzi (Catallozzi), testified that
plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant on June 8, 2023; however, the parties
did not execute a written contract. The trial justice further recounted in his decision:
“[Catallozzi] stated that the only demonstration of a ‘contract’ with [Allen] was the
Request for Formal Appraisal letter” which defendant had signed. According to the
trial justice, “Mr. Catallozzi testified that if a person settles with their insurance
company based on the estimate that Future Contracting creates and if the insured
wishes to use Future Contracting as their contractor for the work to be performed,
the estimate fee is waived.” In other words, because defendant did not retain Future
Contracting to perform the restoration work, defendant was responsible for any
“estimation work” provided. Thus, in accordance with the trial justice’s review of
the evidence, he summarized that plaintiff’s estimating work included ten hours of
office visits by defendant, ten hours in the field, and eight hours performing the
estimation work on the computer. For these services, plaintiff “sent an invoice via
certified letter five times to the [p]roperty,” which, Catallozzi purportedly testified,
defendant refused to accept. At the June 7, 2024 hearing, both defendant and a
-3- co-owner of the property, William Culpepper, testified. Mr. Catallozzi also testified
as a rebuttal witness.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial justice found that “a contract for
estimation work existed between the parties * * *.” The trial justice further
concluded that “[p]laintiff [was] entitled to $3,100 in damages plus costs.” On July
19, 2024, the Superior Court entered an order dismissing defendant’s appeal from
the District Court judgment.
Analysis
We note at the outset that, in addition to failing to produce portions of the
transcripts, defendant, the moving party in this appeal, has failed to articulate any
meaningful argument for our review.
This Court has “consistently held that ‘simply stating an issue for appellate
review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does
not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore
constitutes a waiver of that issue.’” Dunn’s Corners Fire District v. Westerly
Ambulance Corps, 184 A.3d 230, 235 (R.I. 2018) (brackets omitted) (quoting
Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314, 316 (R.I. 2017) (mem.)). Before this Court,
defendant has contested factual issues and conclusions drawn by the trial justice but
has failed to articulate any legal error in the record before us. “[T]he deliberate
decision to prosecute an appeal without providing the Court with a transcript of the
-4- proceedings in the trial court is risky business.” Cashman Equipment Corporation,
Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d 430, 437 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Palange v.
Palange, 243 A.3d 783, 784 (R.I. 2021) (mem.)).
Furthermore, “Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate
Procedure requires that ‘promptly after filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall
comply with the provisions of Rule 10(b) or (c) and shall take any other action
necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record.’” Cashman
Equipment Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d at 437 (brackets omitted); see also Article
I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. Finally, we have
noted that “[w]ithout the transcripts from the trial at which the evidence and
testimony were presented * * * we cannot say that the trial justice * * * erred * * *.”
Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d at 440.
The defendant “was responsible for ‘ensuring that the record is complete and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Supreme Court
No. 2024-324-Appeal. (KD 24-332)
Future Contracting & Estimators, : LLC
v. :
Maelee Allen, Alias, et al. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email: opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court
No. 2024-324-Appeal. (KD 24-332)
Future Contracting & Estimators, : LLC
v. :
Maelee Allen, Alias, et al. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Goldberg, for the Court. The self-represented defendant, Maelee
Allen (defendant or Allen), appeals from a Superior Court order denying and
dismissing her District Court appeal following a bench trial.1 This matter came
before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and
show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.
After examining the memoranda and arguments presented by the parties, we
1 According to the notice of appeal, there are two named defendants—Maelee Allen and William Culpepper; however, only Allen paid an appeal filing fee in the Superior Court. Accordingly, Allen is the only appellant properly before this Court for purposes of appeal. -1- conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to decide the appeal at this
time. We affirm the order of the Superior Court.
Facts and Travel
The plaintiff, Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC (plaintiff or Future
Contracting), initiated this action in the Third Division District Court on October
25, 2023, by filing a civil book account action seeking payment of $3,100 plus
statutory interest from defendant for plaintiff’s “estimating services for damages”
regarding defendant’s property located at 8 Warren Avenue in North Providence,
Rhode Island (the property). A judge of the District Court entered judgment in
favor of plaintiff on April 9, 2024. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal to
the Superior Court on April 11, 2024.
The parties appeared before a justice of the Superior Court (the trial justice)
for a bench trial on May 10, 2024, and June 7, 2024.2 On July 19, 2024, the trial
justice issued a bench decision in favor of plaintiff, which was memorialized in a
written decision. As noted by the trial justice, plaintiff alleged that it had a contract
with defendant for estimating work, and, thereafter, plaintiff sent an invoice for
$3,100 for services. The trial justice recounted that in her answer to the complaint,
2 Although the Superior Court docket indicates a bench trial was held on May 10, 2024, no transcript from this hearing date was provided to this Court. Therefore, our review is limited to the June 7, 2024 transcript, the trial justice’s July 19, 2024 bench decision, and the trial justice’s written decision. The parties also appeared before the trial justice on May 24, 2024, to discuss a scheduling issue. -2- defendant asserted she had never signed a contract with plaintiff for any repairs to
the property and that she purportedly was told by an employee of plaintiff that she
would not be charged unless a formal appraisal was needed.
In his written decision, the trial justice noted that, during the May 10, 2024
hearing, plaintiff’s managing member, Ralph Catallozzi (Catallozzi), testified that
plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant on June 8, 2023; however, the parties
did not execute a written contract. The trial justice further recounted in his decision:
“[Catallozzi] stated that the only demonstration of a ‘contract’ with [Allen] was the
Request for Formal Appraisal letter” which defendant had signed. According to the
trial justice, “Mr. Catallozzi testified that if a person settles with their insurance
company based on the estimate that Future Contracting creates and if the insured
wishes to use Future Contracting as their contractor for the work to be performed,
the estimate fee is waived.” In other words, because defendant did not retain Future
Contracting to perform the restoration work, defendant was responsible for any
“estimation work” provided. Thus, in accordance with the trial justice’s review of
the evidence, he summarized that plaintiff’s estimating work included ten hours of
office visits by defendant, ten hours in the field, and eight hours performing the
estimation work on the computer. For these services, plaintiff “sent an invoice via
certified letter five times to the [p]roperty,” which, Catallozzi purportedly testified,
defendant refused to accept. At the June 7, 2024 hearing, both defendant and a
-3- co-owner of the property, William Culpepper, testified. Mr. Catallozzi also testified
as a rebuttal witness.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial justice found that “a contract for
estimation work existed between the parties * * *.” The trial justice further
concluded that “[p]laintiff [was] entitled to $3,100 in damages plus costs.” On July
19, 2024, the Superior Court entered an order dismissing defendant’s appeal from
the District Court judgment.
Analysis
We note at the outset that, in addition to failing to produce portions of the
transcripts, defendant, the moving party in this appeal, has failed to articulate any
meaningful argument for our review.
This Court has “consistently held that ‘simply stating an issue for appellate
review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does
not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore
constitutes a waiver of that issue.’” Dunn’s Corners Fire District v. Westerly
Ambulance Corps, 184 A.3d 230, 235 (R.I. 2018) (brackets omitted) (quoting
Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314, 316 (R.I. 2017) (mem.)). Before this Court,
defendant has contested factual issues and conclusions drawn by the trial justice but
has failed to articulate any legal error in the record before us. “[T]he deliberate
decision to prosecute an appeal without providing the Court with a transcript of the
-4- proceedings in the trial court is risky business.” Cashman Equipment Corporation,
Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d 430, 437 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Palange v.
Palange, 243 A.3d 783, 784 (R.I. 2021) (mem.)).
Furthermore, “Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate
Procedure requires that ‘promptly after filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall
comply with the provisions of Rule 10(b) or (c) and shall take any other action
necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record.’” Cashman
Equipment Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d at 437 (brackets omitted); see also Article
I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. Finally, we have
noted that “[w]ithout the transcripts from the trial at which the evidence and
testimony were presented * * * we cannot say that the trial justice * * * erred * * *.”
Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d at 440.
The defendant “was responsible for ‘ensuring that the record is complete and
ready for transmission.’” Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d at
437-38 (brackets omitted) (quoting Boulais v. DiPaolo, 305 A.3d 1270, 1271 (R.I.
2024) (mem.)). Although the defendant’s appellate argument contests the facts
drawn from the evidence, this approach is unavailing. Without the May 10, 2024
transcript and considering the lack of appellate argument presented by Allen, we
deem the issues waived.
-5- Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the Superior Court. The
papers may be remanded to the Superior Court.
-6- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC v. Maelee Title of Case Allen, Alias, et al. No. 2024-324-Appeal. Case Number (KD-24-332)
Date Opinion Filed December 17, 2025
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg
Source of Appeal Kent County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Kevin F. McHugh
For Plaintiff:
Seth A. Perlmutter, Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendant:
Maelee Allen, pro se