PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey R. Worth, appellant pro se. Anne (Worth) McBride, appellant pro se.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and HJELM, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
[¶ 1] Jeffrey R. Worth appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court (Springvale, Mulhern, J.) finding Worth in contempt for failure to pay spousal support to his ex-wife, Anne (Worth) McBride. SeeM.R. Civ. P. 66. The motion for contempt that led to this judgment was the fourth post-judgment motion that the District Court had to consider due to Worth's continuing failure to comply with his spousal support obligations despite findings that he has the ability to comply.
[¶ 2] In prosecuting this appeal, Worth failed entirely to file an appendix to the briefs, seeM.R.App. P. 8(a), (b)(1), and did not supply a transcript of the proceedings or any substitute for a transcript as authorized by M.R.App. P. 5. Because of these defects in the appeal, we are unable to provide meaningful appellate review, and we dismiss the appeal. SeeM.R. App. P. 8(j); Hutchinson v. Bruyere, 2015 ME 16, ¶¶ 5–10, 111 A.3d 36.
[¶ 3] We note additionally that the trial court has provided Worth with multiple opportunities to avoid incarceration despite his consistent failure to pay spousal support. Worth's present appeal—combined with the procedural history of the case—demonstrates Worth's willingness to use court process to repeatedly delay or avoid paying an unambiguous spousal support obligation. The remedy of contempt, with the immediate consequence of imprisonment for failure to comply, seeM.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(1), (2)(D), (3)(A), is appropriate in such circumstances.
The entry is:
Appeal dismissed. Mandate to issue forthwith.