Lubuelo v. Rowe

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedNovember 16, 2022
DocketCUMap-21-37
StatusUnpublished

This text of Lubuelo v. Rowe (Lubuelo v. Rowe) 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
Lubuelo v. Rowe, (Me. Super. Ct. 2022).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-21-37 LAPINO LUBUELO et al

V. ORDER

THOMAS ROWE

Thomas Rowe, the Appellant, was the Defendant in a small claims matter filed by Lapino

Lubuelo. Rowe was Lubuelo's landlord. The court found that Rowe violated the security deposit

statute and awarded double damages based on the retention of the security deposit, 14 MRS §

6033-34, along with additional relief.

Rowe filed this appeal objecting to the double damages. He argues that Lubuelo's

apartment was exempt from Sections 6033 and 6034 because the apartment was in an owner

occupied building. 14 MRS § 6037(2).

Defendant appeals to the Superior Court questions oflaw only. See Order, 3/4/22. On an

appeal on questions of law, the Superior Court's review of the District Court must be based on a

record prepared pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76F. M.R.Sm.Cl.P. 1 l(d)(l),(3). The appellant, has the

burden of providing an adequate record. Sullivan v. Zimmerman, 2013 Me. Super. LEXIS 286, *2­

4, citing Lamb v. Euclid Ambler Assoc., 563 A.2d 365, 367 (Me. 1989). "Rule 76F(c) contemplates

that when a transcript of the small claims hearing is available, it will be made part of the record on

appeal. .. There is no indication that a full transcript was unavailable and could not have been

included in the record." Id. The absence of a full transcript precludes meaningful appellate

review. Id.; citing Kingsbury v. Forbes, 1998 ME 168, P 5, 714 A.2d 149, 151.

n.-.~m CU.MB CLERKS 1 ;22 Pw:i: 11 In this case, instead of providing the record, the Defendant merely asserts the "Defendant

testified" his unit was owner occupied. There is no record for the court to rely on. The court

has no way to determine whether that evidence was before the court. Therefore, the court does

not reach the merits of the case and affirms the judgment.

The District Court's judgment in PORDC-SC-2019-00647 is AFFIRMED.

This Order is incorporated on the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).

DATE: If I/ I! z"t.. 'fhomas R. McKeon Justice, Maine Superior Court

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

Related

Lamb v. Euclid Ambler Associates
563 A.2d 365 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1989)
Kingsbury v. Forbes
1998 ME 168 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lubuelo v. Rowe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubuelo-v-rowe-mesuperct-2022.