Lubuelo v. Rowe
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lubuelo v. Rowe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubuelo-v-rowe-mesuperct-2022.