Berry v. Berry
| Decision Date | 11 July 1978 |
| Citation | 388 A.2d 108 |
| Parties | Diantha P. BERRY v. Frank G. BERRY. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Carl O. Bradford, Freeport (orally), for plaintiff.
Frank G. Berry, pro se (orally).
Before McKUSICK, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD and NICHOLS, JJ.
When an inadequate record is presented to the Law Court to support an appeal, such appeal must fail. Such is the case here.
A District Court Judge, after hearing, granted plaintiff a divorce, and on July 29, 1977, the defendant seasonably appealed to the Superior Court where "(t)he appeal shall be on questions of law only and shall be determined by the Superior Court without jury . . . ." Rule 73(a), D.C.Civ.R. The appeal remained dormant until, on November 4, 1977, the plaintiff served defendant-appellant notice that her previously filed "Motion . . . to Dismiss Appeal of Defendant" would be heard on November 18, 1977, on which date a Superior Court Justice, noting that "Defendant failed to appear," granted the motion to dismiss with the further mandate required by Rule 73(a), D.C.Civ.R.: "Case remanded to District Court for entry of final judgment." It is from this Superior Court ruling that the defendant has appealed.
Appellant has not included in the record on appeal the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, 1 and, therefore, we do not know what specific allegations, if any, were contained therein. Neither is there any record of the hearing before the Superior Court Justice (if there was one). Likewise, the record is silent concerning the rationale of the Superior Court Justice by which he reached his decision. In short, the record furnishes us no basis for an effective review of the Superior Court's decision granting the plaintiff's motion to dismiss. It is an appellant's burden to support his appeal with a record sufficient in content to allow a fair consideration thereof. 2 Maiorino v Morris, Me., 367 A.2d 1038, 1040 (1977). See State v. Bellanceau, Me., 367 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1977). The appellant here has failed to comply with this mandate.
The entry is:
Appeal denied.
Judgment affirmed.
1 The Superior Court docket indicates the filing of such a motion on "09-08-77."
2 The appellant appeared pro se. We learn from his brief, as well as from the limited record of the District Court included in the record on appeal, that appellant's main argument stems from the withdrawal of his counsel prior to hearing in the District Court. The docket of that Court contains this entry:
"7/1977 Motion by (appellant's attorney) to withdraw as counsel for Defendant granted. / s/ (District Court Judge)."
The divorce decree was dated July 21, 1977.
Rule 89(a) M.R.Civ.P., provides:
(emphasis supplied)
The District Court record does include a written motion to withdraw signed by appellant's then counsel. Evidently the preconditions for voluntary withdrawal of counsel under Rule 89(a) were not met (since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nadeau v. State
...remarked that "(w)hen an inadequate record is presented to the Law Court to support an appeal, such appeal must fail." Berry v. Berry, Me., 388 A.2d 108, 109 (1978). In Berry, we denied an appeal where the appellant was contesting the granting of a motion to dismiss and did not include the ......
-
Hossler v. Barry
...the rule that "(w)hen an inadequate record is presented to the Law Court to support an appeal, such appeal must fail." Berry v. Berry, Me., 388 A.2d 108, 109 (1978). Here, however, the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen either that the presiding Justice would abrogate a long-stand......
-
Minott v. F. W. Cunningham & Sons
...not met its burden "to support (the) appeal with a record sufficient in content to allow a fair consideration thereof." Berry v. Berry, Me., 388 A.2d 108, 109 (1978). Moreover, it is "the duty of the presiding justice, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to determine the prejudicial effe......
-
State v. Desjardins
...v. Armstrong, Me., 344 A.2d 42 (1975). See also Cutler Associates, Inc. v. Merrill Trust Co., Me., 395 A.2d 453 (1978); Berry v. Berry, Me., 388 A.2d 108 (1978). Even though the defendant as a person aggrieved by a seizure which he claims unlawful could, pursuant to Rule 41(e), M.R.Crim.P.,......