Austin v. Aable Locksmith
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, SS. Charles Austin, Plaintiff v. D0 ~! '" ,-. i r· ~ " ,_ ,_, ,_ ~ ...... Aable Locksmith/James Morissette, Defendant FEB 06 200B Charles Austin appeals from a judgment entered against him on a small claims statement of claim adjudicated in the District Court (Newport). Austin has moved to default Aable Locksmith/James Morissette (Morissette) on this appeal because Morissette did not file a brief on appeal. The court denies the motion. When an appellee fails to file an appellate brief, that party is precluded from participating at oral argument. See M.R.Civ.P. 76G(b) (controlling appellate proceedings from small claims actions, see M.R.Sm.Cl.P. 11(e)). Here, as is its uniform practice, the court dispenses with oral argument and considers the issues on appeal based on the appellate record and those briefs that have been filed. Thus, despite the absence of any brief filed by Morissette, the court considers the merits of Austin's arguments on appea1. The court has reviewed the record on appea1. To the extent that Austin's arguments on appeal relate to matters addressed at trial, he is not entitled to relief because he has not filed a transcript of that proceeding. 1 Putnam v. Albee, 1999 ME 44, ~ 10, 726 A.2d 217,219-220. Further, Austin has not established here that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its rulings on pre-trial discovery issues, and the absence of a trial transcript precludes any finding that Austin was prejudiced by any such rulings. By motion, Austin sought and was granted an enlargement of time to complete arrangements for the preparation of the transcript. The Electronic Recording Division has advised that Austin failed to make arrangements to pay for such a transcript and that it has cancelled his transcript order. Thus, the record - which does not include the transcript - must be deemed complete. .1 ; " The entry shall be: Judgment affirmed. Dated: November 7, 2007 Justice, Mai Jeffrey L.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
