Thomas J. Yarcheski v. P&K Sand and Gravel, Inc., 117 A.3d 1047

On Nov. 23, 2011, after a heavy, wet snow, Yarcheski observed his roadside mailbox tilted and with snow splashed on it and a neighbor’s; he did not see any vehicle cause the disturbance that morning.
Months later, when repositioning the mailbox, a copper breakaway pin inside snapped; Yarcheski claimed $450 in damages and sued P&K, the town’s snowplow contractor, in small claims court.
At the District Court bench trial, Yarcheski admitted he never saw a P&K truck that day and produced no witnesses who saw the mailbox damaged; the District Court ruled for P&K for lack of proof.
Yarcheski appealed to the Superior Court, moved to recuse the Superior Court justice based on a prior unrelated case in which that justice previously ruled against him, and the Superior Court denied recusal and affirmed the small-claims judgment.
On further appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Yarcheski raised factual arguments about causation and breach of care and renewed bias/recusal claims; the Supreme Judicial Court limited review to questions of law and rejected the recusal request as meritless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court erred in finding P&K not liable for mailbox damage	Yarcheski argued facts show P&K breached a duty and caused the damage	P&K argued plaintiff lacked proof linking P&K to the damage	Court declined to reach factual merits on appeal; appellate review of small-claims is limited to questions of law, and plaintiff raised only factual issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed or otherwise affected by omission of transcript material	Yarcheski did not include small-claims transcript in appendix	P&K relied on procedural rules requiring mandatory appendix contents	Court noted omission impedes appellate review and that required appendix contents were missing; did not reach merits
Whether the Superior Court justice should have recused for alleged bias based on a prior unrelated adverse decision	Yarcheski argued prior adverse ruling by the justice showed partiality	P&K and the court argued prior adverse rulings do not show bias and recusal was unwarranted	Court held recusal motion properly denied; prior adverse decision alone is not evidence of partiality
Standard of review for recusal decision	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Denial of recusal reviewed for abuse of discretion; here no abuse of discretion occurred

Franklin Printing v. Harvest Hill Press, 801 A.2d 1004 (Me. 2002) (when Superior Court acts as appellate court, appeals proceed to Supreme Judicial Court from District Court judgment)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (adverse judicial rulings alone do not demonstrate bias warranting recusal)
In re Michael M., 761 A.2d 865 (Me. 2000) (standard of review for recusal motions: abuse of discretion)
Town of Naples v. Yarcheski, 854 A.2d 185 (Me. 2004) (prior case involving the appellant and the justice; cited by appellant in recusal motion)
In re Estate of Lipin, 939 A.2d 107 (Me. 2008) (reinforces that prior adverse rulings do not establish judicial partiality)
Charette v. Charette, 60 A.3d 1264 (Me. 2013) (denial of recusal upheld where claim of bias was meritless)