Tingley v. Frapier
Download as PDF
Wordperfect 3
Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT			Reporter of Decisions
Decision:1998 ME 13
Docket:Pen-97-326
Submitted
on Briefs:December 12, 1997
Decided:January 15, 1998


Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, LIPEZ, and
SAUFLEY, JJ.

STANWOOD TINGLEY

v.

ROSEMARIE FRAPIER

PER CURIAM


	[¶1] Defendant Rosemarie Frapier appeals from a judgment of the
Superior Court (Penobscot, Marden, J.) affirming an order of the District
Court (Newport, Russell, J.) dismissing her appeal from a judgment of
foreclosure for want of prosecution pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76F(a).  Finding
no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment.
	[¶2] The present appeal results from a foreclosure action brought
against defendant in June of 1995 with regard to real estate in Dixmont that
she mortgaged to plaintiff Stanwood Tingley.  After a series of delays and
improper filings by defendant, in May of 1996, the District Court granted
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entered an order of
foreclosure.  Defendant filed a notice of appeal and ordered a transcript
pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76F.{1}  When, after notice, defendant failed to make
payment on her transcript order, and, therefore, failed to produce the
transcript within the time required by M.R. Civ. P. 76F, plaintiff moved to
dismiss for want of prosecution.  The District Court dismissed the appeal,
and the Superior Court affirmed the order of dismissal.
	[¶3] Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76H(d)(2)(B), a party is permitted to
include a transcript of the trial court proceedings as part of the record on
appeal to the Superior Court.  Once defendant requested the transcript, her
failure to produce the transcript within the specified time limits became
grounds for dismissing her appeal for want of prosecution.{2}  Although the
power of dismissal is discretionary, on the record before us the District
Court acted well within its discretion in dismissing defendant's initial
appeal for want of prosecution.
	[¶4] It is also abundantly clear from the record that defendant's
present appeal is frivolous and requires the imposition of sanctions.  There
is no basis, and defendant offers none, for challenging the District Court's
order of dismissal.  In the brief filed with us, defendant focuses her entire
argument on the analysis of the Superior Court, ignoring the fact that we
directly review the trial court's finding when the Superior Court acts as an
intermediate court of appeal.  See Estate of Saliba v. Dunning, 682 A.2d 224
(1996).  Due to defendant's pattern of noncompliance with the Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the frivolous nature of this appeal, we impose treble costs
and attorney fees in the amount of $300 pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76(f).  See
First Citizens Bank v. M.R. Doody, Inc., 669 A.2d 743 (Me. 1995); Lynn v.
Lynn, 644 A.2d 1060, 1062 (Me. 1994).
	The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.  Treble costs and
attorney fees in the amount of $300 shall
be paid by defendant Rosemarie Frapier,
or her attorney, to plaintiff Stanwood
Tingley.
                                                                  

Attorney for Plaintiff:	
			
Edward C. Russell, Esq.				
RUSSELL, LINGLEY & SILVER, P.A.	
145 Exchange Street				
Bangor, Maine 0440l-6505

Attorney for Defendant:

Schuyler G. Steele, Esq.
P. O. Drawer F
Newport, Maine 04953