Kaylyn Bailey et al.
Neil Saunders d/b/a Red Door Rentals.
OF APPEAL: Providence County (PD 14-4527) Superior Court
Associate Justice Richard A. Licht
Plaintiffs: Karenann McLoughlin, Esq.
Defendant: Neil Saunders, Pro Se
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia,
defendant-landlord, Neil Saunders, appeals pro se
from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the
plaintiff-tenant, Kaylyn Bailey, after a trial before a
justice sitting without a jury. The trial justice ordered
that the defendant-landlord pay the plaintiff-tenant a total
sum of $3, 517.96 to compensate her for rent paid in advance
and for damage to personal property. On appeal before this Court, the defendant
in essence questions the trial justice's
trial justice found that the defendant breached the lease
agreement when he accepted rent from the plaintiff to reserve
a room in an apartment while simultaneously allowing a third
party to occupy that same room. On appeal, the defendant
argues that the trial justice's findings were incorrect
because he had not, in fact, allowed a third party to occupy
the rented room. The defendant further contends that the
trial justice erred because he failed to accord sufficient
weight to the testimony of the defendant's witness. It is
significant, however, that the defendant did not include the
transcript of any of the Superior Court proceedings within
the record on appeal.
previously said that:
"The deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal without
providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in
the trial court is risky business. 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."
731 Airport Associates, LP v. H & M Realty
Associates, LLC ex rel. Leef, 799 A.2d 279, 282 (R.I.
2002) (citing DePetrillo v. Coffey, 118 R.I. 519,
521 n.1, 376 A.2d 317, 318 n.1 (1977)).
I, Rule 10(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate
Procedure requires the appellant to "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." In this case, the defendant
did not order nor provide, in whole or in part, the
transcript of the Superior Court proceedings. It is evident
from the defendant's Rule 12A statement that this appeal
is not "limited to a challenge to rulings of law that
appear sufficiently on the record" and that the
defendant does not in fact "accept the findings of the
trial justice as correct" as 731 Airport
Associates requires. 731 Airport
Associates, 799 A.2d at 282. Rather, it is precisely
the trial justice's factual findings with which the
defendant takes issue. Because we have not been provided with
a transcript of the Superior Court proceedings, we are unable
to consider the issues raised by the defendant in this
we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The record in
this case may be remanded to the Superior Court.
as an Order of this Court this 6th day of January, 2017.
 The Superior Court heard the case on
defendant's de novo appeal from the Sixth
Division District Court, which also ...