noting that it was “good practice” for “[t]he court [to] review[ ] [appellant’s] statement of the evidence, ma[k]e some modifications and additions to it based on its recollection of the proceedings, and approve[ ] the statement as modified.”
How later courts described this case
- noting that it was “good practice” for “[t]he court [to] review[ ] [appellant’s] statement of the evidence, ma[k]e some modifications and additions to it based on its recollection of the proceedings, and approve[ ] the statement as modified.”
- noting with approval the appellant and the court’s implementation of Rule 5(d)
- noting an example of proper implementation of M.R.App. P. 5(d)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DANA, J.,
dissenting.
[¶ 16] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 17] The law authorizes the peaceful repossession of an automobile when the debtor is behind in his payments. 32 M.R.S. § 11017(1) (2006); 4 James J. White & Robert S. SummeRS, Uotform Commercial Code § 34-8 at 384-86 (5th ed. 2002). In order to accomplish a peaceful repossession, it is usually necessary to locate the vehicle when the debtor is not behind the wheel. Although a fact-finder might conclude that the creditor here caused the spouse of the debtor to be intimidated and fearful, in my view, such a fact-finder could not conclude that that was the creditor’s intent.