TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

International Silver Co. v. DiGirolamo

INTERNATIONAL SILVER CO. v. Joe DiGIROLAMO, D/B/A Slenderworld International

Int'l Silver Co. v. DiGirolamo, 475 A.2d 1143 (Me. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 24, 1984
Judges
McKusick, Nichols, Roberts, Wathen, Glassman, Scolnik
Citations
475 A.2d 11431984 Me. LEXIS 701

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Joe DiGirolamo, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirming a District Court order entering summary judgment for the plaintiff International Silver Company. We affirm the judgment.

By complaint filed in the District Court, Division of Northern Cumberland, on January 10, 1983, the plaintiff alleged the defendant owed $2,905.31 for goods it had sold and delivered to the defendant, plus $581.10 in accrued interest. The defendant, answering pro se, stated the goods had been delivered late, and he was returning them to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment based on the pleadings. A hearing was held on the plaintiffs motion on May 25, 1983, at which both parties appeared, the defendant appearing without counsel. There is no indication in the record that either party requested a recording of the proceedings, pursuant to M.D.C.Civ.R. 76(a), and none was made. On June 7, 1983, the court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, awarding International Silver Company $2,905.31, plus interest and costs.

The defendant, continuing to act pro se, appealed to the Superior Court, pursuant to M.D.C.Civ.R. 73(a). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, finding “no error of law appears on the record.”

The defendant has retained counsel for his appeal to this court, and argues, apparently for the first time, that the proper party defendant in this action is Slender-world International, Inc. and that the District Court erred in finding the defendant personally liable for that corporation’s debts.

We have repeatedly stated that an appellant has an affirmative duty to provide the reviewing court with an adequate record upon which consideration can be given to the arguments advanced in support of the appeal.

See, e.g., State v. Meyer, 423 A.2d 955, 956 (Me.1980);

Boothbay Register, Inc. v. Murphy, 415 A.2d 1079, 1080 (Me.1980);

Meyer v. Meyer, 414 A.2d 236, 238 (Me.1980). In the instant *1145 case, the appellant did not furnish the Superior Court with any transcript of the proceedings in the District Court, nor provide any other record authorized as a basis for review by M.D.C.Civ.R. 75(c) or 75(d). The Superior Court was therefore entirely correct in affirming the judgment.

The record before us does not show the issues raised by the defendant on this appeal to have any merit whatsoever, and the defendant could not reasonably have believed that this appeal had any chance of success.

Cf. Boothbay Register, Inc. v. Murphy, 415 A.2d at 1080 . We find this appeal to be frivolous, and imposé treble costs, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $150, upon the appellant, payable to International Silver Co., the prevailing party, or its attorney. 14 M.R.S.A. § 1802 (1980); M.R.Civ.P. 76(f).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Treble costs and $150 attorney’s fees allowed to the appellee.

All concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 11985: 11986: 41987: 21991: 31997: 11998: 12001: 119842026peak 1986 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. International Paper Realty Corp. v. St. Hilaire525 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1987)
  2. Daicy v. Warren600 A.2d 406 (Me. 1991)
  3. Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.1997 ME 203, 703 A.2d 844
  4. Gurschick v. Clark511 A.2d 36 (Me. 1986)
  5. Ltown Ltd. Partnership v. Sire Plan, Inc.108 A.D.2d 435 (1985)
  6. Fraser Employees Federal Credit Union v. Labbe1998 ME 71, 708 A.2d 1027

Most recent

  1. Cloutier v. Kennebec Tool & Die Co., Inc.No. KENap-01-45 (Me. Super. Ct Oct. 31, 2001)
  2. Fraser Employees Federal Credit Union v. Labbe1998 ME 71, 708 A.2d 1027
  3. Brooks v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.1997 ME 203, 703 A.2d 844
  4. Daicy v. Warren600 A.2d 406 (Me. 1991)
  5. Dixon v. Dorney588 A.2d 322 (Me. 1991)
  6. State v. One Uzi Semi-Automatic 9mm Gun589 A.2d 31 (Me. 1991)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Boothbay Register, Inc. v. Murphy, 415 A.2d 1079 (Me. 1980) 22
Meyer v. Meyer, 414 A.2d 236 (Me. 1980) 31
State v. Meyer, 423 A.2d 955 (Me. 1980) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list