Appellate Waiver through Inadequate Briefing and Incomplete Record:
Commentary on Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC v. Maelee Allen

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island’s decision in Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC v. Allen, No. 2024-324-Appeal (Dec. 17, 2025), is not a landmark in substantive contract law. Rather, it is a pointed reaffirmation of two core rules of Rhode Island appellate practice:

• An appellant waives issues on appeal by failing to develop meaningful legal argument supported by authority; and
• An appellant bears the responsibility to provide a complete record—especially the relevant trial transcripts—or risk automatic affirmance due to the appellate court’s inability to review alleged error.

The case arose from a modest civil “book account” action: a contractor sought payment of $3,100 plus statutory interest for estimating services performed in connection with damage to residential property. The defendant, self-represented both in the Superior Court and on appeal, disputed the existence of any contract obligating her to pay for the estimate. The Superior Court, after a bench trial, found that a contract for estimating work did exist and entered judgment for the contractor.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the controversy shifted from contract formation and payment obligations to appellate procedure: the defendant did not supply a full set of trial transcripts and failed to present any cogent legal argument identifying trial court error. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the Superior Court’s order, deeming the issues waived.

This commentary examines:

• The factual and procedural background of the dispute;
• The Supreme Court’s summary disposition and its reasoning;
• The precedents relied upon and how they shaped the outcome;
• The broader impact of the decision on appellate practice, especially for self-represented litigants and small civil cases; and
• Key procedural concepts and terms, explained in accessible language.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The plaintiff, Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC, sued defendant Maelee Allen in the Third Division District Court to recover $3,100 plus statutory interest for “estimating services for damages” relating to property at 8 Warren Avenue in North Providence. The District Court entered judgment for the plaintiff on April 9, 2024. Allen appealed to the Superior Court, where a bench trial was held on May 10 and June 7, 2024. The Superior Court justice (the “trial justice”) issued a bench decision and written decision on July 19, 2024, concluding that a contract for estimating work existed between the parties and awarding the plaintiff the requested amount plus costs.

Allen then appealed to the Supreme Court. Her appeal suffered from two fundamental defects:

1. She failed to provide a transcript of the May 10, 2024 hearing—where, by the trial justice’s account, the plaintiff’s key witness testified concerning the contract; and
2. Her appellate submission did not articulate any legal error, but merely contested the factual findings and the trial justice’s conclusions.

Relying on well-established Rhode Island precedent, the Supreme Court held that:

• Issues are deemed waived where an appellant simply states them without meaningful legal discussion or supporting authority; and
• An appellant bears responsibility to ensure that the record on appeal is complete, including necessary transcripts. Without those transcripts, the Court cannot review factual findings or many alleged errors.

Finding that Allen had not carried her burden under the Rules of Appellate Procedure and relevant case law, the Court deemed her arguments waived and affirmed the Superior Court’s order dismissing her appeal from the District Court judgment.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Factual and Procedural Background

1. The underlying dispute

Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC filed a civil “book account” action in the Third Division District Court on October 25, 2023. The complaint sought payment of $3,100 plus statutory interest from Allen for “estimating services for damages” relating to her property at 8 Warren Avenue, North Providence.

According to the trial justice’s written decision (as recounted in the Supreme Court’s opinion), the plaintiff’s managing member, Ralph Catallozzi, testified that:

• Future Contracting and Allen entered into a contract on June 8, 2023 for “estimating work,” even though they did not execute a formal written contract for repair work;
• The only written manifestation of the contract was a “Request for Formal Appraisal” letter signed by Allen;
• Future Contracting’s business model was that if the homeowner settled with an insurer based on Future Contracting’s estimate and then hired Future Contracting to perform the repair work, the estimate fee would be waived; but
• If the homeowner did not hire Future Contracting to perform the repairs, the homeowner would remain responsible for the fee associated with the estimating services.

The trial justice summarized that the plaintiff’s estimating services for Allen involved:

• Ten hours of office visits by Allen;
• Ten hours in the field; and
• Eight hours performing the estimation work on the computer.

For this work, the plaintiff issued an invoice for $3,100 and, according to Catallozzi’s testimony, sent the invoice via certified mail to the property address five times. Allen allegedly refused to accept those mailings.

Allen, in her answer below, contended that she:

• Had never signed a contract with Future Contracting for any repairs to the property; and
• Had been told by a plaintiff’s employee that she would not be charged unless a “formal appraisal” was needed.

2. District Court judgment and Superior Court appeal

On April 9, 2024, the District Court entered judgment for the plaintiff. Allen appealed to the Superior Court on April 11, 2024. Under Rhode Island practice, civil appeals from the District Court to the Superior Court are typically tried anew (a “de novo” proceeding), as occurred here.

The Superior Court held a bench trial on May 10 and June 7, 2024, and the parties also appeared on May 24, 2024, regarding scheduling. The Supreme Court’s opinion notes an important procedural gap: although the Superior Court docket reflects the May 10 bench trial date, the transcript of that proceeding was not provided to the Supreme Court. Only the June 7 transcript, the July 19 bench decision, and the written decision were in the record on appeal.

After hearing evidence, including testimony from:

• Catallozzi (for the plaintiff);
• Allen (defendant); and
• William Culpepper (co-owner of the property and co-defendant below),

the trial justice found that a contract for estimation work did indeed exist between Future Contracting and Allen. He further concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to $3,100 in damages plus costs. On July 19, 2024, the Superior Court entered an order “dismissing” Allen’s appeal from the District Court judgment, effectively leaving the District Court judgment in force.

Although both Allen and Culpepper were defendants below, only Allen paid the Superior Court appeal filing fee. Consequently, only Allen was properly before the Supreme Court as an appellant.

3. Supreme Court proceedings

The Supreme Court ordered the parties to appear and show cause why the appeal should not be summarily decided—a procedure used when the Court believes that the issues may be resolved without full briefing and oral argument under the ordinary calendar. After reviewing the parties’ written memoranda and arguments at the show-cause hearing, the Court concluded that “cause has not been shown” and proceeded to decide the appeal summarily, affirming the order of the Superior Court.

B. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Supreme Court’s reasoning relies heavily on prior Rhode Island cases addressing two recurring appellate problems: (1) inadequately briefed issues and (2) incomplete appellate records, especially missing transcripts. Each cited case reinforces a piece of the Court’s rationale in Future Contracting.

1. Dunn’s Corners Fire District v. Westerly Ambulance Corps, 184 A.3d 230 (R.I. 2018)

The Court quotes Dunn’s Corners for the principle that simply naming an issue on appeal, without substantive legal discussion, is insufficient:

“[S]imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.” (quotation cleaned up).

In Dunn’s Corners, the Court made clear that appellants are expected to do more than list grievances or restate trial-level arguments in conclusory form. They must engage with legal standards, cite authority, and apply law to facts. That principle is squarely applied against Allen, who contested only factual determinations and did not point to any specific legal errors by the trial justice.

2. Giddings v. Arpin, 160 A.3d 314 (R.I. 2017) (mem.)

Giddings is cited in tandem with Dunn’s Corners, reinforcing the waiver doctrine for undeveloped arguments. Both cases contribute to a firmly established rule in Rhode Island: failure to adequately brief an issue—by providing legal analysis and authority—results in the forfeiture of that issue on appeal.

In Future Contracting, the Court notes that Allen, “the moving party in this appeal, has failed to articulate any meaningful argument for our review.” This formulation echoes the concern from Giddings and Dunn’s Corners that the Court cannot and will not construct arguments for an appellant.

3. Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, Inc., 335 A.3d 430 (R.I. 2025)

Cashman is a recent and closely on-point precedent. The Court quotes it for the stern warning:

“[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.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In Cashman, as in Future Contracting, the appellant did not provide necessary transcripts. The Court emphasized that without the transcript of relevant proceedings, it cannot meaningfully review claimed errors, especially those that turn on credibility determinations, evidentiary rulings, or factual findings.

The Cashman opinion also underscored the appellant’s obligations under the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, particularly:

• Rule 11(a): requiring the appellant to take “any other action necessary” to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record; and
• Rule 10(b) and (c): dealing with ordering transcripts or, where unavailable, preparing a suitable alternative statement of the evidence.

Future Contracting expressly incorporates these principles, using Cashman as a template to dispose of Allen’s appeal.

4. Boulais v. DiPaolo, 305 A.3d 1270 (R.I. 2024) (mem.)

Boulais is cited for the proposition that the appellant is responsible for ensuring that “the record is complete and ready for transmission.” In that case, as here, the Court emphasized that it is not the responsibility of the trial court clerk or the opposing party to correct deficiencies in the record.

By quoting Boulais, the Court in Future Contracting reinforces a consistent theme: the burden to perfect an appeal rests with the appellant. Neglecting to secure transcripts—or to use Rule 10(c) to reconstruct the record when transcripts are unavailable—can be fatal.

5. Palange v. Palange, 243 A.3d 783 (R.I. 2021) (mem.)

In Cashman, the Court quoted Palange for the “risky business” admonition, which is carried forward into Future Contracting. Palange dealt with similar issues of incomplete records on appeal, and it serves as another link in the chain of cases warning litigants of the perils of appealing without the necessary transcripts.

The repeated invocation of Palange and related cases signals that the Court views this problem as chronic and is increasingly explicit about the consequences.

C. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. The nature and limits of appellate review

An appellate court does not retry a case. Its role is to review the decisions of the lower courts for legal error, based on the record as it existed below. As a result:

• The Supreme Court cannot make new factual findings; and
• It must review the trial court’s factual determinations under deferential standards, typically asking whether the findings were “clearly wrong” or whether the trial justice “overlooked or misconceived material evidence.”

That review necessarily depends on having:

• A complete and accurate record of what occurred in the lower court; and
• Clear articulation by the appellant of what legal errors are being alleged.

In Future Contracting, both of these requirements were lacking.

2. Waiver through inadequate briefing

The Court first addressed the quality of Allen’s appellate presentation:

“[I]n addition to failing to produce portions of the transcripts, defendant, the moving party in this appeal, has failed to articulate any meaningful argument for our review.”

Allen challenged only “factual issues and conclusions drawn by the trial justice,” without identifying any legal error. She did not:

• Identify specific rulings she claimed were wrong;
• Explain why those rulings conflicted with law or precedent; or
• Cite legal authority (statutes, cases, or rules) supporting her position.

Under Dunn’s Corners and Giddings, this failure constitutes waiver:

“[S]imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”

The Court applied that rule straightforwardly. Instead of reconstructing arguments on Allen’s behalf, it held that the issues were waived due to her failure to provide developed legal analysis.

3. Appellant’s duty to provide a complete record and transcripts

The Court then turned to the absence of a critical piece of the record: the transcript of the May 10, 2024 bench trial session. That session, according to the trial justice’s written decision, included the key testimony of the plaintiff’s managing member regarding the existence and terms of the alleged contract.

The opinion stresses:

• Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that, “promptly after filing the notice of appeal, the appellant…shall take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record”; and
• The appellant “was responsible for ‘ensuring that the record is complete and ready for transmission.’” (quoting Boulais).

The Court reiterates the admonition from Cashman and Palange:

“[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.”

Here, the risk materialized. Because the May 10 transcript was missing, the Court stated:

“[W]ithout the transcripts from the trial at which the evidence and testimony were presented * * * we cannot say that the trial justice * * * erred * * *.”

In other words, when Allen’s arguments attacked factual conclusions and credibility assessments—matters intrinsically tied to the evidence presented at trial—the absence of the full trial record foreclosed meaningful review. The Court could not verify her assertions or evaluate whether the trial justice had misconceived material evidence, and therefore it could not find error.

4. Combined effect: categorical waiver and affirmance

The Court ultimately grounded its decision in a combination of:

• Inadequate briefing (waiver of issues by failure to develop legal argument); and
• Incomplete record (waiver or inability to review fact-based challenges without necessary transcripts).

The opinion concludes:

“Without the May 10, 2024 transcript and considering the lack of appellate argument presented by Allen, we deem the issues waived.”

Having found the issues waived, the Court had no basis to disturb the Superior Court’s order. It therefore affirmed the order dismissing Allen’s appeal from the District Court judgment, leaving the judgment for the plaintiff undisturbed.

5. Treatment of self-represented litigants

Although not explicitly discussed, the case implicitly reflects the Court’s approach to self-represented (pro se) litigants. Allen appeared without counsel at all stages. The Court consistently referred to her as “the self-represented defendant,” but it did not relax the procedural standards or create any special exception for her status.

Rhode Island, like many jurisdictions, generally holds that while courts should interpret pro se filings liberally in some respects, self-represented litigants are nonetheless bound by the same rules of procedure and substantive law as represented parties. Future Contracting is fully consistent with that approach: Allen’s pro se status did not excuse her from:

• Complying with Rule 11(a) and 10(b)/(c);
• Ordering or otherwise providing for trial transcripts; and
• Developing legal arguments supported by authority.

D. Impact and Implications

1. Reinforcement of strict appellate standards

The opinion solidifies a trend in Rhode Island appellate practice: the Supreme Court is increasingly explicit that it will not:

• Search the record for error not properly identified;
• Construct legal arguments for appellants; or
• Relax transcript and record requirements, even in relatively small civil cases.

For practitioners and litigants, the message is unambiguous: an appeal is not a second chance to “re-argue” the case informally. It is a structured legal process governed by strict rules. Failure to treat it as such virtually guarantees affirmance of the judgment below.

2. Practical implications for litigants and lawyers

The case has several practical consequences:

• Transcripts are essential. If an appeal will contest:
  • Factual findings (e.g., whether a contract existed);
  • Credibility determinations (e.g., whom the trial justice believed); or
  • Most evidentiary rulings;
  the appellant must provide transcripts of all relevant hearings. Partial transcripts can be as problematic as no transcript at all when the missing portion is material, as in this case.
• Use of Rule 10(c) when transcripts are unavailable. Rule 10(c) allows an appellant to prepare a “statement of the evidence or proceedings” when a transcript is unavailable, subject to review and approval by the trial court. Future Contracting implicitly warns that failing to use such mechanisms will weigh against the appellant when key transcripts are missing.
• Briefing must be more than disagreement. An appellant’s brief must:
  • Identify specific rulings challenged;
  • Explain why they were erroneous under clearly stated legal standards; and
  • Support that explanation with citations to statutes, rules, and case law.
  Mere assertions that the trial justice was “wrong” or “unfair” will not suffice.
• Small cases, same rules. The amount in controversy here was $3,100 plus interest—modest by appellate standards. Yet the Court applied its procedural rules fully and without exception. This underscores that the rigors of appellate practice apply regardless of the monetary value of the underlying dispute.

3. Implications for self-represented parties

For self-represented litigants, Future Contracting is especially instructive:

• Appeals are legally and procedurally complex;
• Missteps—such as not ordering transcripts or not properly brief­ing legal issues—can entirely foreclose review; and
• Courts will not “fix” these omissions on their own initiative.

The case therefore highlights the importance of seeking legal assistance or, at minimum, carefully studying the Rules of Appellate Procedure and prior appellate decisions before pursuing an appeal.

4. Substantive backdrop: contracts for estimating services

Substantively, the underlying dispute involved a contractor seeking to recover a fee for “estimating services” under a business model where:

• The estimate fee is waived if the property owner hires the contractor to perform the repair work; but
• The property owner is charged for the estimate if they choose not to retain the contractor for the job.

Although the Supreme Court did not directly review the merits of this arrangement due to the procedural defects, the Superior Court’s judgment—left intact—implicitly recognizes that:

• An enforceable contract for estimating services can exist even in the absence of a formal written repair contract;
• A signed “Request for Formal Appraisal” can serve as evidence of the homeowner’s agreement to pay for certain services; and
• Time spent in preparation of the estimate (office consultations, field visits, and computer-based estimation work) can be compensable under such an agreement.

Practically, contractors and property owners alike should be aware that “free estimates” often come with conditions. If a contractor has clearly communicated that the estimate will be free only if the contractor is hired for the job—and the homeowner proceeds regardless—courts may be willing to enforce the contractor’s right to a fee if the homeowner later selects a different contractor. While Future Contracting does not establish a new substantive rule on this point, the affirmed judgment is consistent with general principles of contract formation and restitution.

E. Clarifying Complex Concepts and Terminology

1. “Book account” action

A “book account” action is a traditional civil claim used to recover money owed on an open account—for example, a running account of goods sold, services rendered, or other charges recorded over time. It is commonly used in commercial settings when one party has billed another periodically, and the total balance remains unpaid.

In this case, Future Contracting used a book account action to recover the fixed fee it claimed for its estimating services, plus statutory interest.

2. Bench trial

A bench trial is a trial conducted without a jury, in which the judge (here, the Superior Court justice) serves as the finder of fact and law. The judge decides:

• What facts are proven based on the evidence; and
• How the law applies to those facts.

Appellate courts typically give substantial deference to a trial justice’s factual findings made after a bench trial, particularly those based on witness credibility, because the trial justice directly observes the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses.

3. Appeal from District Court to Superior Court

In Rhode Island, many civil cases decided in the District Court can be appealed to the Superior Court. In those cases, the Superior Court usually conducts a new trial rather than a simple review of the District Court record. That is what occurred here: after the District Court judgment for Future Contracting, Allen filed a timely appeal, and the matter was tried anew before the Superior Court.

4. Notice of appeal and the “record on appeal”

A notice of appeal is the document filed by the losing party in the lower court to formally initiate an appeal. Filing the notice of appeal is only the first step. The appellant must also ensure that the record on appeal—which includes pleadings, exhibits, orders, and crucially, transcripts of hearings and trials—is assembled and transmitted to the Supreme Court.

Rule 11(a) of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure explicitly places that responsibility on the appellant.

5. Transcripts and Rule 10(b)/(c)

A transcript is a written record of what was said during courtroom proceedings. Under Rule 10(b), an appellant who intends to challenge findings or conclusions that depend on evidence must either:

• Order the relevant transcripts from the court reporter; and/or
• File a certificate indicating that no transcript is necessary.

Rule 10(c) provides an alternative mechanism when a transcript is unavailable, allowing an appellant to prepare a “statement of the evidence” from the best available means, which the trial court then reviews and either approves or modifies. Neither of these tools was adequately employed by Allen, leaving a critical gap—the May 10 transcript—in the record.

6. Waiver in the appellate context

In appellate law, waiver means the loss of the right to have an issue reviewed because of a failure to properly raise or preserve it. Common forms of waiver include:

• Not objecting to an issue at trial;
• Not including an issue in the notice of appeal; or
• Failing to adequately brief an issue on appeal.

In Future Contracting, waiver occurred in two ways:

• Allen’s failure to develop legal arguments and support them with authority; and
• Her failure to provide or reconstruct key portions of the trial record through transcripts or Rule 10(c) statements.

7. “Pro se” and “alias”

Pro se means that a party is representing herself without a lawyer. Allen was pro se throughout. As noted, this status does not exempt a party from compliance with procedural rules.

The caption refers to “Maelee Allen, Alias.” The term “alias” in a caption typically indicates that the party is known by another name or that the name used in the action differs slightly from the person’s legal name. The opinion does not elaborate on this point, and it has no bearing on the Court’s analysis.

8. “Statutory interest”

When a court awards “statutory interest,” it is awarding interest on a judgment at a rate set by statute (legislative enactment), rather than a rate determined by contract alone. In Rhode Island, such interest is often awarded from a particular date (e.g., filing of the complaint) until the judgment is satisfied.

9. “Summarily decided” and show-cause orders

The Court’s statement that it ordered the parties to appear and show cause why the issues should not be “summarily decided” refers to a streamlined appellate procedure. When the Court concludes that a case can be resolved without full briefing and oral argument on the regular calendar, it may:

• Issue a show-cause order; and
• After receiving short memoranda and hearing from the parties, decide the appeal in a concise opinion.

This mechanism conserves judicial resources in cases where the outcome is clear under existing law, as was true here given the evident waiver and record deficiencies.

IV. Conclusion

Future Contracting & Estimators, LLC v. Allen is a clear reaffirmation of two fundamental pillars of Rhode Island appellate practice:

1. Issues not meaningfully briefed are waived. Appellants must do more than list their disagreements with the trial court; they must frame and support legal arguments with citations to authority and application to the facts.
2. The appellant bears the burden to provide a complete record, including necessary transcripts. When key proceedings are not transcribed or otherwise preserved under Rule 10(c), the Supreme Court cannot review fact-dependent claims of error and will not disturb the trial court’s findings.

The decision underscores that these principles apply:

• Even in modest civil disputes, such as a $3,100 book account claim;
• Even where the appellant is self-represented; and
• Even where the appeal raises potentially significant factual disagreements about contract formation and obligations.

By affirming the Superior Court’s order and deeming Allen’s issues waived, the Supreme Court sends a strong institutional message: successful appellate advocacy demands rigorous adherence to procedural rules and disciplined legal argumentation. Litigants—especially those considering proceeding without counsel—must understand that the appellate stage is not a casual re-argument of the case, but a structured legal review constrained by the record they themselves create and present.