Opinion ID: 2334418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Provide Transcript

Text: Article I, Rule 10(b)(1) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that [w]ithin twenty (20) days after filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall order from the reporter a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant deems necessary for inclusion in the record. Rule 11(a) of our rules elaborates on this requirement: The record on appeal, including the transcript necessary for the determination of the appeal, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court within sixty (60) days after the filing of the notice of appeal unless the time is shortened or extended by an order entered under subdivision (c) of this rule. Promptly after filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Rule 10(b) or (c) and shall take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record. Furthermore, Article I, Rule 3(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure impresses upon litigants the potential consequences of failing to comply with this requirement: Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal or payment of a filing fee as prescribed by these rules does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the Supreme Court or trial court deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.  (Emphasis added.) Ultimately, it is the appellant's duty to ensure that the record is complete and ready for transmission. Small Business Loan Fund Corp., 795 A.2d at 532 (quoting Procopio v. PRM Concrete Corp., 711 A.2d 650, 651 (R.I.1998) (mem.)). Even if an appellant opts to appeal without a transcript, it is the appellant's responsibility to so inform the Court. Id. at 533 (citing Sup.Ct. R. 10(b)(1)). This Court has warned that [t]he deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal without providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is risky business. 731 Airport Associates, LP v. H & M Realty Associates, LLC, 799 A.2d 279, 282 (R.I.2002). Unless the appeal is limited to a challenge to rulings of law that appear sufficiently on the record and the party accepts the findings of the trial justice as correct, the appeal must fail. Id. (citing DePetrillo v. Coffey, 118 R.I. 519, 521 n. 1, 376 A.2d 317, 318 n. 1 (1977)). Failing to transmit a record within [sixty] days of filing the notice of appeal, `leaves [a wouldbe appellant] in the same position as not having filed notice at all.' Small Business Loan Fund Corp., 795 A.2d at 532-33 (quoting Procopio, 711 A.2d at 651). Although dismissal of the appeal may be appropriate, an appeal will not be dismissed for failure to perfect if `the inability of the appellant to cause timely transmission of the record is due to causes beyond his [or her] control or to circumstances which may be deemed excusable neglect.' Id. at 533 (quoting Daniel v. Cross, 749 A.2d 6, 9 (R.I.2000)) (emphasis omitted). A litigant asserting excusable neglect must demonstrate extenuating circumstances sufficient to excuse his or her noncompliance with the court rules. Daniel, 749 A.2d at 9. Unexplained neglect alone is insufficient to excuse a party's noncompliance. Iddings v. McBurney, 657 A.2d 550, 553 (R.I.1995). Rather, [e]xcusable neglect that would qualify for relief    is generally that course of conduct that a reasonably prudent person would take under similar circumstances. Daniel, 749 A.2d at 9 (quoting Astors' Beechwood v. People Coal Co., 659 A.2d 1109, 1115 (R.I.1995)). Not only has defendant failed to perfect the present appeal by providing this Court with the proper transcript, but an identical error was among the procedural missteps that prompted the dismissal of defendant's first appeal. The defendant's failure to provide this Court with a transcript of the July 13 hearing leaves us unable to conduct any meaningful review of the lower court's decision. Without a transcript of the hearing we are unable to determine whether the motion justice abused his discretion in dismissing defendant's appeal from the denial of her motion to vacate the default judgment. The record in this case is devoid of any explanation for defendant's failure to timely order a transcript of the July 13 hearing. This Court is aware only that defendant failed to order the proper transcript, which alone does not constitute excusable neglect. Rather, it is our opinion that the reasonably prudent person would ensure that he or she has ordered the correct transcript to perfect the appeal. Furthermore, defendant's election to proceed pro se in this appeal does not excuse her from compliance with court processes. Even if a litigant is acting pro se, he or she is expected to familiarize himself or herself with the law as well as the rules of procedure. Faerber v. Cavanagh, 568 A.2d 326, 330 (R.I.1990). Moreover, notwithstanding defendant's current pro se status, defendant was, in fact, represented by counsel when her original appeal was dismissed. Even if defendant had perfected this appeal, her only explanation for failing to timely order a transcript of the March 23 and 29 hearings was that she was enduring financial difficulties and had trouble communicating with the court stenographer. These allegations alone are insufficient to demonstrate excusable neglect, given that it is the appellant's responsibility to timely transmit both the record and the transcript to this Court. Without a transcript of the hearing on the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's appeal, we are unaware of whether the defendant asserted any explanation for her neglect to the motion justice. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the motion justice abused his discretion in dismissing the defendant's appeal from the denial of her motion to vacate the default judgment.