Hanss v. Fournier

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: September 8, 2010
• Docket: SAGap-10-005
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT Sagadahoc, ss. 'V>/ ,q J\1·H - S f\ C1 ~ r9 O! 0

ROBERT HANSS and SHOSHANNA YORK,

Plaintiffs/ Appellants

v. Docket No. SAGSC-AP-10-005

WAYNE FOURNIER

Defendant/ Appellee

DECISION AND ORDER

This small claims appeal is before the court on the appeal of the small

claims plaintiffs, Robert Hanss and Shoshanna York from the decision of the

West Bath District Court granting a small claims judgment to the small claims

defendant, Wayne Fournier. The court elects to decide the appeal without oral

argument.

When the plaintiff in a small claims case appeals to the Superior Court, the

appeal is on questions of law only, based on the record on appeal. M.R. S.c. P.

l1(d)(l). The record on this appeal includes the original papers and exhibits

filed in the District Court, a certified copy of the docket entries. M.R. Civ. P.

76F(a), and the appellant's written statements regarding the case and their

reasons for appealing, the most recent of which was docketed September 7, 2010.

The record in this case does not include a transcript of the trial

proceedings. Rule 76F(c) provides that when a transcript is unavailable, the

appellant "may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection, for use instead of a

transcript."

Mr. Hanss and Ms. York, as the appellants, have the burden of providing

an adequate record. Lamb v. Euclid Ambler Assoc., 563 A.2d 365,367 (Me. 1989).

No record of the hearing has been filed, nor any statement of evidence, so this

court must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the District

Court's determination.

Moreover, the appellants have not pointed to any particular error of law

in the District Court judgment. Their primary argument is that their evidence

should have been accepted. Because their appeal is limited to errors of law, in

effect they had to show that the District Court committed an error of law by

denying them any recovery on their claim, and the record does not support any

such conclusion.

It is hereby ORDERED as follows:

The appeal is denied. The Notice of Judgment and the separate Decision

of the District Court dated May 14, 2010, are hereby affirmed.

Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(b), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate

this order by reference in the docket.

Dated September 8, 2010

Justice, Superior Court Honorable Andrew MHorton