Raymond Boschetto v. Cinty Boschetto, 183 A.3d 536

Raymond Boschetto (pro se) appealed a Family Court divorce decision after a trial and amended decision; he filed notice of appeal while final judgment was pending.
Within 20 days of appeal, Boschetto timely ordered partial transcripts (six trial dates) and paid about $2,000, but did not order a full transcript.
Rule 10(b)(1) required that, if the entire transcript is not ordered, the appellant must also file and serve a description of the transcript portions to be included and a statement of specific points relied on for appeal.
Boschetto did not timely provide the required statement of specific issues; he later filed a motion for extension and a notice identifying the dates of the partial transcripts and that issues would be determined after counsel review.
The Family Court found the notice insufficient under Rule 10(b)(1) and dismissed the appeal; Boschetto appealed that dismissal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion, found dismissal harsh given Boschetto’s pro se status, timely ordering/ payment for partial transcripts, lack of prejudice to appellee, and concluded he should have been granted an extension to supplement the record; it vacated the Family Court judgment and remanded to reinstate the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boschetto complied with Sup. Ct. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) by timely ordering partial transcripts but not providing a statement of specific points	Boschetto ordered partial transcripts timely, paid for them, and later notified appellee of dates; lack of specific points was due to awaiting transcript review and counsel advice	Cindy argued Boschetto failed to provide the required statement of issues within 20 days, making appeal dismissal proper	Court held noncompliance existed but dismissal was an abuse of discretion given pro se status, timely ordering/payment, lack of prejudice, and should have been given an extension to supplement
Whether dismissal of the appeal was an appropriate remedy for the Rule 10(b)(1) defect	Boschetto argued dismissal was too harsh and deprived appellate review; requested extension	Cindy sought dismissal for failure to timely transmit record and provide issue statement	Court held dismissal was too harsh; ordered vacatur and remand to reinstate appeal and allow supplementation

Pelosi v. Pelosi, 50 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review for dismissal of appeal)
Sentas v. Sentas, 911 A.2d 266 (R.I. 2006) (procedural requirements for transcript ordering and transmission)
Small Bus. Loan Fund Corp. v. Gallant, 795 A.2d 531 (R.I. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review of procedural dismissals)
In re Kimberly and James, 583 A.2d 877 (R.I. 1990) (trial justice afforded appellant time to supply points before dismissal)
Armstrong v. Polaski, 360 A.2d 558 (R.I. 1976) (failure to designate transcript portions not necessarily fatal if later cured)
In re Kyla C., 79 A.3d 846 (R.I. 2013) (dismissal where transcripts were never ordered)
Stepp v. Stepp, 898 A.2d 724 (R.I. 2006) (dismissal where appellant delayed ordering transcripts months after appeal)