Opinion ID: 4173563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Sanctions Before the Law Court

Text: [¶19] Mika contends that Nathaniel improperly included documents in the appendix that either were not proffered or were specifically excluded by the trial court and that Nathaniel made unsupported arguments in his reply brief in violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. [¶20] Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(c)(2) provides that “[t]he appendix shall not include any documents that are not a part of the trial court file.” We may impose sanctions against a party on appeal who submits an appendix that is not prepared in accordance with the rules. M.R. App. P. 8(c)(5). “Compliance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure is important to the proper functioning of this Court.” Hutchinson v. Bruyere, 2015 ME 16, ¶ 9, 111 A.3d 36 (alterations omitted). [¶21] Nathaniel’s inclusion in the appendix of tax documents that the trial court specifically excluded pursuant to the sanctions order that is the subject of this appeal is not such an apparent violation of Rule 8 that it 11 “frustrates the purposes of the rules governing appellate procedure.” See id ¶ 10. Under the circumstances, the motion for sanctions is denied. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. Henry I. Shanoski, Esq., Henry I. Shanoski, LLC, Portland, for appellant Nathaniel A. Lentz David J. Bobrow, Esq., Bedard and Bobrow, PC, Eliot, for appellee Mika H. Lentz Portland District Court docket number FM-2015-479 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY