124 A.3d 1119
Me.2015Background
- Mildred D. MacComb died in Nov. 2010; a formal testate probate was opened in Kennebec County Probate Court.
- After extended litigation, the probate court entered final judgment on Mar. 6, 2015; James A. Richman appealed on Mar. 20, 2015.
- Richman’s original appellate counsel withdrew; Attorney Randy L. Robinson entered and was given a July 21 briefing deadline.
- Robinson filed a brief July 17 that contained numerous substantive citation and form errors; the Court rejected it and gave a two‑week extension to file an amended brief correcting record citations.
- Robinson’s amended brief (filed Aug. 14) still contained many errors, used nonconforming citation formats, and relied on an eight‑page errata sheet filed late; the Court rejected the amended brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
- Richman moved for reconsideration; the full Court denied the motion, emphasizing the need to follow appellate rules and that dismissal did not favor form over substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended brief should be accepted despite citation/form errors | Robinson argued errors were formal, caused by resource constraints and file loss; substance should control | Appellee (Gero) argued errors were substantial and impeded evaluation and defense | Rejected: brief noncompliant, errors substantial; rejected under M.R. App. P. 9(a),(f) |
| Whether dismissal for want of prosecution was appropriate | Robinson contended dismissal elevates form over substance and was unfair given efforts | Appellee maintained noncompliance hampered defense and Court’s review; rules require compliance | Dismissal affirmed: noncompliance justified dismissal under M.R. App. P. 4(c), 7(d) |
| Whether Court should grant reconsideration of sua sponte rejection/dismissal | Richman sought reconsideration but did not file a corrected brief | Court noted no corrected brief and continued procedural deficiencies | Motion for reconsideration denied by full Court |
| Whether resource constraints of a sole practitioner excuse rule violations | Robinson argued limited resources and solo practice explain shortcomings | Court observed many solo practitioners comply with rules; excusing would harm appellate process | Not excused: resource constraints insufficient to justify noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchinson v. Bruyere, 111 A.3d 36 (Me. 2015) (court emphasizes compliance with appellate rules)
- Estate of Everett, 460 A.2d 1026 (Me. 1983) (inadequate briefs reflect disregard for counsel’s responsibilities and warrant sanction)
- Major v. Chiang, 113 A.3d 228 (Me. 2015) (failure to follow appellate procedure can result in dismissal)