Sean Marchionte v. Francisco Jaramillo, 182 A.3d 1146

In 2007 Marchionte loaned Jaramillo $115,000 secured by a promissory note and mortgages on four properties; payments were not made after maturity.
Marchionte issued deficiency notices, foreclosed on one mortgaged property, applied sale proceeds to the note, and pursued the remaining deficiency.
Marchionte filed suit on September 6, 2016; Jaramillo failed to file a timely answer and Marchionte moved for entry of default under Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
A clerk entered default on October 6, 2016; Jaramillo moved to vacate the entry of default but later withdrew that motion and sought leave to file an out‑of‑time answer while contesting the amount sought.
At a December 7, 2016 hearing the parties discussed settlement; the hearing justice later granted Marchionte’s motion for default judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees; judgment entered April 6, 2017 for $63,098.55 plus interest.
Jaramillo appealed pro se, but did not provide transcripts of the lower‑court hearings, filed a one‑page prebriefing statement with minimal argument, and failed to appear at oral argument before this Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default entry and default judgment were proper	Default properly entered; judgment appropriate after defendant failed to plead or defend	Jaramillo argued he either answered or otherwise defended and that the motion to vacate was mishandled	Affirmed: record insufficient to show abuse of discretion; default judgment stands
Whether appellant preserved and developed appellate issues	Marchionte contends appellant failed to brief or support claims	Jaramillo submitted a brief prebriefing statement and argued procedural error	Court held appellant’s filings and absence at argument waived/failed to develop issues
Whether failure to provide transcripts prevents review	Not applicable for plaintiff except to support judgment	Jaramillo failed to supply transcripts needed for meaningful review	Court declined to review merits because transcripts were not provided
Whether pro se status excuses procedural defaults	Marchionte argued rules apply equally	Jaramillo relied on pro se leniency	Court acknowledged leniency but held pro se status does not excuse noncompliance

R.C. Associates v. Centex General Contractors, Inc., 810 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2002) (default judgment procedure described under Rule 55)
McKinney & Nazareth, P.C. v. Jarmoszko, 774 A.2d 33 (R.I. 2001) (default-judgment practice following entry of default)
Rodriguez v. Virgilio, 58 A.3d 914 (R.I. 2012) (mem.) (standard of review for appeals seeking relief from default judgment)
Shorrock v. Scott, 944 A.2d 861 (R.I. 2008) (appellant’s duty to provide necessary transcript portions for appellate review)
Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (issues not meaningfully briefed are waived)
Giammarco v. Giammarco, 151 A.3d 1220 (R.I. 2017) (mem.) (briefing requirements for appellate matters)
Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580 (R.I. 2005) (pro se litigants receive some leniency but not greater procedural rights)
Gray v. Stillman White Co., Inc., 522 A.2d 737 (R.I. 1987) (courts will not entirely overlook established procedural rules)