Hallali v. Mulkern

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 29, 2008
• Docket: CUMap-07-035
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE ·-- ...._i· i i .... J ; SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, 55. .~. CIVIL ACTION r~, • Docket No. AP-07-035 I-.J 2: )0; -r .--, _ (~ ". : ,J ., c-;t. .; ,', ~.. ' RAHIMA HALLALI,

Plaintiff / Appellant

v. DECISION ON APPEAL

LYNNE MULKERN,

Defendant / Appellee

I. BEFORE THE COURT

The appellant Rahima Hellali (Helalli) appeals from a District Court (Portland,

O'Neil, J.) small claims judgment in favor of her former landlord Lynne Mulkern

(Mulkern). Hellali is attempting to recover a $900.00 security deposit that she had paid

to Mulkern.

II. DISCUSSION

Because Hellali was the plaintiff in the proceeding below, this court's review is

limited to questions of law only, based on the record on appeal. See M.R.S.C.P. l1(d)(1);

M.R.Civ.P.76D. M.R.Civ.P. 76F specifies the proper record to be filed in an appeal from

the District Court, which includes a transcript of the proceedings or a settled statement

of what occurred if a recording was timely requested under M.R.Civ.P. 76H(a), but

none was made "for reasons beyond the control of any party." M.R.Civ.P. 76F(c).

The record before this court includes a statement from Hellali, a brief from

Mulkern's attorney, a docket record, and the exhibits from the hearing below, it does

not contain a transcript of the proceedings or a statement of the evidence in lieu of a

transcript. Hellali claims in her statement that the decision of the lower court was based on

"false documents" that were submitted by Mulkern. However, it does not appear that

either party requested a recording of the hearing before the District Court pursuant to

M.R. Civ. P. 76H(a) and therefore no recording was made.

Hellali does not contend that the absence of a record of the proceedings in the

District Court is for a reason "beyond the control of any party" as that term is used in

M.R. Civ. P. 76F(c), and there is no settled statement of the proceedings that was filed

with the appeal. It was HellaH's burden to ensure that a proper record was filed in the

Superior Court. M.R Civ. P. 76F(a). Without a record, this court is unable to review the

correctness of the District Court's decision. See Manzo v. Reynolds, 477 A.2d 732, 734

(Me. 1984) (stating that the Superior Court must deny an appeal if no record is filed to

allow for fair consideration of the issues on appeal). Furthermore, the statement that

was filed by Hellali does not raise any question of law. Instead, it alleges only that the

evidence submitted by Mulkern below was false and that Hellali has evidence of what

really happened. Hellali, however, had ample opportunity at the small claims trial to

contest the evidence offered by Mulkern and to submit any evidence to the court that

may have supported her position.

III. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

The clerk will make the following entry as the Decision and Judgment of the

court:

• The judgment of the District court (Small Oaims) is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008

2 Date Filed 06-12-07 CUMBERLAND Docket No. AP-07-35 County

Action DISTRICT COURT APPEAL

RAHIMA HELLALI LYNNE MULKERN

YS.

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney RAHIMA HELLALI PRO SE DAVID CHAMBERLAIN ESQ 11 SOUTH GRAFTON STREET PO BOX 2412 PORTLAND ME 04103 SOUTH PORTLAND ME 04116-2412 (207)615-6114 (207)767-4824

Date of