Beskrone, Esq., Attorney for Appellants.
Michael P Morton, Esq., Attorney for Appellee.
Richard F. Stokes, Judge.
the Court is Appellants' Motion to Supplement the Record.
For the following reasons, the Motion is Denied.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Iacona and Robert Weymouth ("Appellants")
challenged a rent increase imposed by Hometown Rehoboth Bay,
LLC ("HRB"), the managing entity of the community
in which Appellants are tenants, under the Manufactured
Homeowners and Manufactured Community Owners Act ("Rent
Justification Act"). Following the Arbitrator's decision
finding justification for the rent increase, Appellants
appealed to this Court. On June 20, 2019, Appellants filed
their Motion to Supplement the Record, seeking to introduce
evidence not previously considered by the Arbitrator.
arbitration hearing, both parties offered witnesses and
exhibits in support of their arguments. The Arbitrator
concluded that, based on the testimony of HRB's witness
and the materials offered to the homeowners at the community
meetings, HRB met their burden to disclose all material
factors in writing to the homeowners at the final
meeting. Though Appellants disputed some of the
testimony, they did not offer contrary evidence.
argue that HRB failed to disclose material information upon
their request. They now move to have evidence of HRB's
failure to disclose entered into the record. Appellants did
not offer this evidence before the Arbitrator.
now wish to expand the record to provide evidence that HRB
failed to disclose material factors upon their request. In
response to Appellants' motion, HRB has moved to strike
Appellants' Supplemental Opening Brief, Supplemental
Reply Brief, and Motion to Supplement the Record, arguing
that they rely on matters not part of the record before this
to section 7044, "the appeal shall be on the record and
the Court shall address written and/or oral arguments of the
parties as to whether the record created in the arbitration
is sufficient justification for the arbitrator's
decisions and whether those decisions are free from legal
error." Appellants argue that they were denied
material information requested before and at the arbitration.
As noted by the Arbitrator, they did not offer any evidence
to rebut the materials and testimony provided by HRB. With no
evidence of such a demand before the Arbitrator, this Court
must rely on the record created in the
had the opportunity to enter the evidence they now wish to
get into the record at the time of arbitration. The
Arbitrator must make a decision based on the evidence before
him. This Court, on appeal, must determine whether the record
created in the arbitration supports the Arbitrator's
decision and that decision is free from legal
error. The evidence was available and Appellants
failed to bring it in front of the Arbitrator when they had