Flint A. Hutchinson v. Christina A. Bruyere, 111 A.3d 36

Hutchinson and Bruyere are parents of a child; a May 2012 District Court judgment established shared parental rights and shared primary residence by agreement.
In April 2013 Hutchinson filed post-judgment motions to modify and for contempt, alleging Bruyere relocated without notice.
A consolidated evidentiary hearing was held in December 2013; the court issued an oral ruling at the hearing and later issued a written supplemental order in April 2014 that incorporated the oral decision and stated the written order would control if conflict existed.
Hutchinson appealed, filed an appendix containing only the court’s April 2014 written order, and submitted a transcript order form but did not pay for the transcript, which was canceled by the Office of Transcript Operations.
Hutchinson’s brief challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and alleged ineffective assistance by his attorney at the hearing; the record lacked the mandatory transcript and other required appendix materials (e.g., docket entries, initiating documents, guardian ad litem report).
The Law Court concluded the omissions prevented meaningful appellate review and dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal may proceed without a complete appendix	Hutchinson contended the court’s decision lacked evidentiary support and challenged counsel’s performance; urged review	Bruyere did not file a brief; Court relied on procedural rules requiring a complete appendix	Appeal dismissed for failure to file the mandatory appendix components
Whether the appeal may proceed without a transcript of the oral ruling	Hutchinson argued merits and counsel effectiveness but did not procure transcript	No transcript was produced; Court noted transcript requirement when challenging findings	Dismissed because lack of transcript precluded review of claimed evidentiary and ineffective-assistance issues
Whether any exceptions (unavailable transcript or agreed record) apply	Hutchinson did not assert unavailability or agreement to a statement in lieu	Court found no suggestion transcript was unavailable or that parties agreed to a statement	Exceptions inapplicable; transcript requirement stands
Whether the Court should affirm on the merits despite record defects	Hutchinson sought review on merits	Court noted in other cases it sometimes affirms despite record gaps, but here defects were material	Court dismissed rather than decide merits due to material noncompliance

State v. Heikkinen, 477 A.2d 749 (Me. 1984) (per curiam) (dismissal for incomplete appendix and record)
Lowd v. Dimoulas, 924 A.2d 306 (Me. 2007) (per curiam) (dismissal for failure to file appendix permitting appellate review)
State v. Ross, 841 A.2d 814 (Me. 2004) (per curiam) (criminal appeal dismissed for failure to file proper appendix)
Your Home, Inc. v. City of Portland, 432 A.2d 1250 (Me. 1981) (discussing record deficiencies in civil appeal)
Ginn v. Kelley Pontiac-Mazda, Inc., 841 A.2d 785 (Me. 2004) (noting appellate court sometimes affirms on merits despite incomplete record)