From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hampel v. Univ. of Md. Harford Mem'l Hosp.

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
May 6, 2020
No. 1341 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May. 6, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1341

05-06-2020

DEVOTED LADY HAMPEL aka NATALYA HAMPEL v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND HARFORD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., et al.


Circuit Court for Harford County
Case No. C-12-FM-18-000604

UNREPORTED

Beachley, Shaw Geter, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. PER CURIAM *This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

In 2018, the Circuit Court for Harford County issued an order appointing the Harford County Department of Aging, appellee, as the guardian of the person and property of Devoted Lady Hampel, appellant. Ms. Hampel, representing herself, filed a petition to terminate the guardianship and that petition was denied following a hearing. Ms. Hampel filed a timely notice of appeal. Thereafter, we issued a show cause order noting that the appeal could be dismissed if she failed to order the necessary transcript. In December 2019, Ms. Hampel filed a transcript request in the circuit court requesting transcripts for hearings that occurred on March 2 and 3, which we note were not the dates of the hearing on her petition. No further action has been taken regarding the transcripts in either this Court or the circuit court. And Ms. Hampel has not filed a motion for extension of time to obtain the transcripts.

On appeal, Ms. Hampel challenges the court's denial of her petition to terminate the guardianship. However, our ability to review this issue is constrained because we do not have a transcript of the hearing on her petition. Moreover, Ms. Hampel has not directed us to any portion of the record from which we could otherwise determine that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition. As the party claiming error, Ms. Hampel has the burden to show "by the record, that error occurred." Kovacs v. Kovacs, 98 Md. App. 289, 303 (1993). Because she has failed to provide us with the necessary transcript, she has not met that burden. Consequently, we must reject her claim of error on appeal. Id. ("The failure to provide the court with a transcript warrants summary rejection of the claim of error.").

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HARFORD COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.


Summaries of

Hampel v. Univ. of Md. Harford Mem'l Hosp.

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
May 6, 2020
No. 1341 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May. 6, 2020)
Case details for

Hampel v. Univ. of Md. Harford Mem'l Hosp.

Case Details

Full title:DEVOTED LADY HAMPEL aka NATALYA HAMPEL v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND HARFORD…

Court:COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Date published: May 6, 2020

Citations

No. 1341 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May. 6, 2020)