David S. Vogel v. Juan G. Catala, 63 A.3d 519

Catala borrowed $8,500 from Vogel while in Las Vegas, with promise to repay within two weeks.
Vogel alleged breach of contract and book account; Catala denied receipt and asserted transaction not a loan.
Vogel moved for summary judgment; Catala asserted § 11-19-17 voids the loan as knowingly lent for betting.
Trial court later found the loan was not void under § 11-19-17 and favored Vogel for $8,500 plus interest and costs.
Appellate court lacked a trial transcript; Catala failed to order a transcript, triggering dismissal risk.
Dissent argued Vogel’s pleadings and sworn statements foreclosed any recovery under judicial admissions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the credibility finding for Vogel is reviewable	Vogel's credibility supported by trial judge	Transcript missing precludes meaningful review	Not reviewable; affirm given lack of transcript
Whether the loan was void under § 11-19-17 as knowingly lent for gambling	Vogel knew Catala would gamble; loan void	Loan was ordinary repayment obligation, not for gambling	Loan not void; not knowingly lent for gambling
Whether Vogel’s judicial admissions foreclose trial evidence	Admissions establish knowledg e of gambling purpose	Admissions binding; trial improper to assess credibility	Judicial admissions dispositive; summary judgment warranted

Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 (R.I.2011) (great weight to trial court findings in civil cases)
Bergquist v. Cesario, 844 A.2d 100 (R.I.2004) (absence of transcript can require dismissal)
State v. Pineda, 712 A.2d 858 (R.I.1998) (standard for reviewing factual findings in criminal cases)
Rice, 986 A.2d 247 (R.I.2010) (judicial admissions conclusively binding on party)
Ogden v. Rabinowitz, 134 A.2d 416 (R.I.1957) (pleadings binding on pleader; judicial admissions)
Anjoori-an v. Kilberg, 836 A.2d 1092 (R.I.2003) (appellate duty to provide record for meaningful review)