Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER 

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-313 

JULY TERM, 2011 

Lisa Force } APPEALED FROM: 

} 

} 

 v. } Superior Court, Windham Unit, 

} Family Division 

} 

Erik Schmitt } DOCKET NO. 113-6-10 Wmfa 

 

 Trial Judge: Katherine A. Hayes 

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: 

Defendant appeals pro se from a final relief-from-abuse order. Defendant essentially 

contends: (1) the evidence failed to support the findings; (2) the findings were inadequate; and 

(3) the court improperly denied him the opportunity to present evidence. We affirm. 

 The record discloses that the trial court issued a final relief-from-abuse order in this 

matter on July 7, 2010, with an expiration date of January 7, 2011. The record further discloses 

that plaintiff filed a motion to extend the order on November 30, 2010, and that the court held a 

hearing on the motion in early December and issued an order denying the motion on December 

11, 2010. Since the order appealed from has expired, the appeal is clearly moot and must be 

dismissed. See In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 67 (1997) (observing that case becomes moot when issues 

presented for review “are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 

outcome”). Although we have recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine where 

“negative collateral consequences” flow from the order on review, id., the exception is limited to 

situations where there is a “sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact on the 

parties,” All Cycle, Inc. v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 164 Vt. 428, 432 (1995); it is not 

available where there is a “mere possibility of negative collateral consequences.” In re Collette, 

2008 VT 136, ¶ 17, 185 Vt. 210. Here, defendant has neither alleged nor shown the likelihood of 

negative collateral consequences, and we thus find no basis to avoid a dismissal of the appeal as 

moot. 

Even if we were to consider the appeal, however, we would be compelled to affirm on the 

ground that defendant failed to order a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, rendering it 

impossible to review the claims. See State v. Gadreault, 171 Vt. 534, 538 (2000) (mem.) 

(holding that appellant’s failure to order transcript precludes review of claims on appeal). As we 

have explained, “[i]t is the burden of the party challenging a ruling to furnish the reviewing court 

a transcript of the proceeding involved.” In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 307 (1988) (quotation 

omitted); see also V.R.A.P. 10(b)(2) (party urging on appeal that finding or conclusion is 

unsupported by evidence must “include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such 

finding or conclusion”). Having failed to provide the necessary record for review on appeal, 
2

defendant must “bear the consequence.” In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. at 307. We discern no basis to 

disturb the judgment. 

Affirmed. 

BY THE COURT: 

_______________________________________ 

John A. Dooley, Associate Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice