David E. Major v. Wen Yih Chiang

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2015 ME 26
Docket No. Pen-14-144
Submitted
On Briefs: February 26, 2015
Decided: March 10, 2015
Panel: ALEXANDER, and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
DAVID E. MAJOR
v.
WEN YIH CHIANG
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Wen Yih Chiang appeals from a judgment of foreclosure in favor of
David E. Major1 entered in the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Cuddy, J.). He
contends that the court abused its discretion or committed factual or legal error in
(1) failing to rule on his motion for a new trial, (2) denying some of his motions to
continue, (3) denying his motion for witnesses to testify remotely, (4) allowing
David and Kim to present a rebuttal argument at trial, (5) admitting certain
evidence and denying admission of other evidence, (6) making several of its
factual findings, and (7) its overall legal determination.
1
David’s wife, Kim Major, is also a party to this appeal because Wen Yih brought a number of claims
against her as a third-party defendant, and he challenges the court’s decisions as to those claims.
2
[¶2] Wen Yih’s filings to us comply with neither the Maine Rules of
Appellate Procedure nor our specific orders to him. On August 27, 2014, Wen Yih
filed a brief containing a 132-page “addendum” and a 723-page appendix. On
September 12, 2014, Wen Yih moved to enlarge the page limit for his appendix.
We denied that motion in an order dated September 16, 2014, and ordered
Wen Yih to resubmit his brief without an addendum and to submit an appendix
that complied with M.R. App. P. 8.
[¶3] Wen Yih then filed his first amended appendix and first amended brief.
We rejected those documents because (1) the appendix did not contain the order
appealed from or the trial court docket sheets and, (2) despite a direct order, Wen
Yih’s first replacement brief also contained an “addendum” of 116 pages. In the
order rejecting those documents, we warned Wen Yih that if he did not comply
with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, “his appeal may be dismissed.”
[¶4] Although Wen Yih did limit his second amended appendix to 285
pages, it does not comply with M.R. App. P. 8 because it contains documents that
(1) are not a part of the trial court file or record and (2) are not a supplement of
legal authorities. See M.R. App. P. 8(c)(2).2 In addition, Wen Yih’s second
2
We note also that Wen Yih failed to comply with the directive of M.R. App. P. 8(c)(3) that
documents that are not mandatory “should be included only if they are important to the issues on appeal,”
and then “shall be placed in the appendix following the ‘mandatory’ documents.”
3
amended brief still contains an addendum totaling 109 pages, and his reply brief
includes an additional 24-page addendum.
[¶5] We recently clarified that failure to comply with Maine Rules of
Appellate Procedure, in particular Rule 8, “prevents proper appellate review.”
Hutchinson v. Bruyere, 2015 ME 16, ¶ 11, --- A.3d ---. Despite direct orders and a
clear warning, Wen Yih failed to comply with Rule 8. Therefore, we dismiss his
appeal. M.R. App. P. 8(j); Hutchinson, 2015 ME 16, ¶ 11, --- A.3d ---; see also
State v. Dominique, 2011 ME 18, ¶ 1, 12 A.3d 53; Lowd v. Dimoulas, 2007 ME 61,
¶ 1, 924 A.2d 306; State v. Ross, 2004 ME 12, ¶ 1, 841 A.2d 814.
The entry is:
Appeal dismissed.
On the briefs:
Wen Y. Chiang, appellant pro se
Michael A. Wiers, Esq., Law Office of Michael A. Wiers.,
Newport, for appellees David E. Major and Kim Major
Newport District Court docket number RE-2011-51
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY