Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE5
Nakiesha Morales et al.
County Superior Court KD 15-937 Associate Justice Allen P.
Plaintiff: Justin Pierce, Esq. Michael R. Hagopian, Esq.
Defendants: Alan Dale Sampson, Pro Se Mark D. Sampson, Pro Se
Nakiesha Morales, Pro Se Grace Sumney, Pro Se Cynthia
Sampson, Pro Se Jaevon Sampson, Pro Se Karen Marie Sampson,
Pro Se Serena Michelle Sampson, Pro Se Grace F. Sampson, Pro
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia,
pro se defendants, Karen Marie Sampson and Alan Dale
Sampson,  appeal from two June 23, 2016 orders of
the Superior Court dismissing their appeals and affirming a
District Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company. This case came before the Supreme
Court on April 5, 2018, pursuant to an order directing the
parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in
this appeal should not be summarily decided. After a close
review of the record and careful consideration of the
parties' arguments (both written and oral), we are
satisfied that cause has not been shown and that this appeal
may be decided at this time.
March of 2015, following the conclusion of foreclosure
proceedings,  plaintiff filed a complaint in the
District Court seeking to evict the eight defendants named in
the complaint from the property located at 62 Potowomut Road
in Warwick. On September 29, 2015, a trial was held, and the
District Court awarded plaintiff possession of 62 Potowomut
Road as well as $28, 500 in damages. (At oral argument before
this Court, plaintiff represented that the damages award was
calculated to reflect the fair rental value of the property
as measured from December 15, 2014-the date on which notices
to quit were sent to all defendants, until September 29,
2015-the date on which judgment was entered in the District
Court.) On October 2, 2015, Alan filed a timely notice of
appeal to the Superior Court from the District Court
appeal to the Superior Court, a justice of that court entered
separate orders as to Alan and Karen, indicating that their
appeals had been dismissed for failure to comply with G.L.
1956 § 34-18-52, which requires payment of rent during
the pendency of an appeal. On June 29, 2016, the trial
justice entered "amended order[s]" as to each of
the defendants, stating that he was dismissing their appeals
based on their "fail[ure] to appear for trial * *
*." A timely appeal to this Court ensued.
plaintiff acknowledged at oral argument before this Court
that, after defendants had filed their appeal from the orders
of the Superior Court, plaintiff sold the property at issue
to another entity and that, as such, plaintiff no longer had
any right to possession of that property.Accordingly,
insofar as the Superior Court orders affirm the judgment of
the District Court awarding plaintiff possession of the
property at issue, we dismiss the appeals as moot. See
Preservation Society of Newport County v. City Council of
City of Newport, 155 A.3d 688, 692 n.7 (R.I. 2017)
("This Court has consistently held that a case is moot
if the original complaint raised a justiciable controversy,
but events occurring after the filing have deprived the
litigant of a continuing stake in the controversy.")
(quoting Hallsmith-Sysco Food Services, LLC v.
Marques, 970 A.2d 1211, 1213 (R.I. 2009)).
as the Superior Court orders affirm the judgment of the
District Court awarding plaintiff $28, 500 in damages, we
note that defendants have presented no briefing or oral
argument to this Court with respect to that issue.
Accordingly, we conclude that defendants have waived their
rights to appellate review of said issue. See Nuzzo v.
Nuzzo Campion Stone Enterprises, Inc., 137 A.3d 711, 717
(R.I. 2016) (declining to address an argument raised by an
appellant on appeal due to his failure to have "directed
our attention with specificity to any error that he alleges
has been committed"); see also Town Houses at Bonnet
Shores Condominium Association v. Langlois, 45 A.3d 577,
584 (R.I. 2012) (indicating that the appellant's
contentions on appeal were "meritless because they were
not sufficiently developed in his written submissions to this
Court"); Tri-Town Construction Co., Inc. v. Commerce
Park Associates 12, LLC, 161 A.3d 500, 504 (R.I. 2017);
Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314, 316 (R.I. 2017)
(mem.). Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the Superior
Court dismissing the appeals as to the damages issue.
reasons set forth herein, we dismiss on the ground of
mootness the instant appeal with respect to the issue of
possession of the property, and we affirm the orders of the
Superior Court dismissing the appeals from the judgment of
the District Court with respect to the issue of damages. The
record may be remanded to the Superior Court.
 In this Order, we will usually refer
to the defendants by their first names for the purpose of
clarity; in doing so, we intend no disrespect.
 Alan and Karen Sampson were the only
defendants who filed notices of appeal to this Court.
Accordingly, the other defendants in this case are ...