Note:  Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.


                                                                      ENTRY ORDER


                                               SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-366


                                                                     JUNE TERM, 2006


William R. Temple                                                  }           APPEALED FROM:


     v.                                                                      }           Orange Superior Court


Monica King                                                          }

}           DOCKET NO. 63-4-04 Oecv


Trial Judge: Amy M. Davenport


                                                In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


Defendant Monica King appeals pro se from the trial court=s final judgment order in this eviction case.  We affirm.


In April 2004, plaintiff William Temple filed an eviction complaint against plaintiff.  In February 2005, the court granted plaintiff a writ of possession after defendant failed to pay rent into court as ordered.  In August 2005, after a merits hearing, the court issued a final judgment order awarding plaintiff $2475 for eleven months of unpaid rent.  The court rejected defendant=s counterclaims, which alleged a breach of the warranty of habitability, damage to personal property, and retaliatory eviction.  Defendant appealed.


It is difficult to discern defendant=s arguments on appeal.  She identifies no specific error of fact or law in the court=s decision.  She asserts, for example, that her rent was being paid by the State but she fails to explain how this is relevant to any alleged error.  She refers, with little explanation, to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  She also accuses the Office of the Attorney General of acting improperly.  These arguments do not provide a basis for reversing the trial court=s order.  See In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 297 (1988) (appellant bears burden of demonstrating how the trial court erred warranting reversal, and Supreme Court will not comb the record searching for error); see also V.R.A.P. 28(a)(4) (appellant=s brief should explain what the issues are, how they were preserved, and what appellant=s contentions are on appeal, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on).  We find no error.   






John A. Dooley, Associate Justice



Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice



Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice