Supreme Court

N o. 2014

- 208

- Appeal. ( KC 11

- 302 )

Thomas McMahon :

v. :
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al. :

O R D E R This case came before the Supreme Court on October 28 , 2015, pursuant to an order directing t he parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. Before this Court, the plaintiff, Thomas McMahon, appeals from the grant s of summary judgment in the Superior Court in favor of the defendants, Deuts che Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche), Westcott Properties, Inc. (Westcott), and Michelle Savastano
(Savastano ). We conclude that cause has not been shown and that the appeal may be decided at

this time. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm t he judgment of the Superior Court. On March 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a negligence action in the Kent County Superior Court against Deutsch e , Westcott, Savastano, and additional co

- defendants that are not part ies to this appeal. The plaintiff sought to rec over damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on real property located at 244 Atlantic Avenue in Warwick, Rhode Island . The plaintiff allege d that, as a prospective buyer, he had visited the property with Savastano, a real

esta te broker employed by Westcott , the realty agency ; he further alleged that Deutsche possessed a “security interest” in the property. Westcott and Savastano moved for summary judgment on November 4, 2013, and Deutsche filed its summary

- judgment motion sepa rately on

- 1

-November 5, 20 1 3. The Superior Court justice granted both motions on November 20, 20 1 3

. The order granting summary judgment for Deutsche entered on November 20, 2013, and the
order on Westcott and Savastano’s motion entered on November 29, 2013

. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. In support of his appeal, plaintiff submitted to this Court a prebriefing statement , as required by Article I, Rule 12A (1) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, in which

he asserted that the gr ant s of summary judgment were in error . In a single paragraph, plaintiff presented his argument: that the evidence in the case “raised genuine issues of material fact” and that “adequate support” for his allegations existed. The prebriefing statement fai led to specify , in

any way, what genuine issues of material fact existed such that the summary judgment s should

be vacated , nor did it articulate wh ich evidence support s plaintiff’s allegations. The plaintiff did not provide citations to either the pleadi ngs or any substantive legal authority to escape judgment

as a matter of law

. The specifications of a prebriefing statement are outlined by Rule 12A(1) , which provides, in relevant part: “Within twenty (20) days after the docketing of the record of an ap peal with the clerk of the Supreme Court , * * * the appellant * * * shall file a statement of the case and a summary of the issues proposed to be argued * * *.” If , thereafter, this Court issues a

show

- cause order, either party may submit a supplemental show

- cause statement. Rule 12A(4).

The prebriefing statement , read together with the supplemental show

- cause statement, if

submitted , “serve s as the functional equivalent of [a] brief.” Bowen Court Associates v. Ernst & Young, LLP , 818 A.2d 721, 728 n.3 (R.I. 2003)

.

- 2

-The adherence by this Court to the raise

- or

- waive ru le for appellate briefs is well established and codified by Article I, Rule 16(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Rule 16(a) reads, in pertinent part:

“ Errors not claim ed, questions not raised and points not made ordinarily will be treated as waived and not be considered by the Court. In cases where it may be necessary for the Court to examine the evidence, the party shall specify in his or her brief the leading facts t hat the party deems to be established by the evidence, with a r eference to the pages of the record and the appendix where the evidence of such facts may be found, which references will be relied upon by the Court in its consideration of such facts. Ordina rily the Court will not consider evidence not referenced in conformity with this subdivision. ”
Nor will this Court “ search the record to substantiate that which a party alleges .” Riley v. Stone , 900 A.2d 1087, 1098 n.14 (R.I. 2006). As we previously have explained , “[s] imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a

waiver of that issue. ” W il kinson v. State Crime Laboratory Commissio n , 788 A.2d 1129, 113 1

n.1 (R.I. 2002)

. In this case, the plaintiff has failed to present any argument gro unded in specific facts and

law to support his claim that the Superior Court justice erred in granting the summary judgment s

. We decline to scour the record to identify facts in support of the plaintiff’s broad claims, and we

will not give life to arguments that the plaintiff has failed to develop on his own. We deem the plaintiff’s arguments in support o f his appeal waived. Accord In re Jake G. , 126 A.3d 450, 458 (R.I. 2015) (determining that a particular issue was not properly before the Court where the respondent did not include facts or law to support arguments on appeal ) ; Horton v. Portsmouth

Police Dep artment , 22 A.3d 1115, 1130 (R.I. 2011) (holding that “a bare one

- line ‘summary’ of each” issue on appeal fails to comport with the strictures of Rule 16); Ku rczy v. St. Joseph

- 3

-Veterans Association , Inc. , 820 A.2d 929, 940

- 41 n.3 (R.I. 2003) ( concluding that the appellant

waived a particular issue on appeal by writing only four sentences in support of argument and

exclud ing references to record). Accordingly, we decline to address the plaintiff’s claims of

error. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm th e judgment of the Superior Court

.

Entered as an Order of this Court this 22 nd day of February , 2016

. By Order,

_____________ /s/

__________________ Clerk

- 4

-

### R HODE 

### I SLAND 

### S UPREME 

### C OURT 

### C LERK 

### ’ S 

### O FFICE


### Clerk’s Office Order/O pinion Cover Sheet

TITLE OF CASE: Thomas McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al.

CASE NO : N o. 201 4

- 208

- Appeal

. ( KC 11

- 302 )

COURT: Supreme Court

DATE ORDER FILED: February 22 , 2016

JUSTICES: S uttell, C.J. , Goldberg, Flaherty , R obinson , and In deglia, JJ.

WRITTEN BY: N/A

– Court Order

SOURCE OF APPEAL: Kent County Superior Court

JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT :
Associate Justice Sarah Taft

- Carter

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL :
For Plaintiff: Derri n R. Almada , Esq. Benjamin A. Pushner, Esq.

For Defendant s : Paul A. Anderson , Esq. Joseph

- Anthony DiMaio , Esq.