80B component of the complaint and on December 21, after a hearing, resolved the Rule 80B appeal by affirming the action of the City. [¶ 6] Three days later, on December 24, the City filed its first motion to dismiss, arguing that Baker’s Table’s failure to file a motion to specify the future course of proceedings as required under M.R. Civ. P. 80B(i) required dismissal. The City followed this on January 8, 1999, with a second motion to dismiss for failure to file a motion requesting a trial of the facts pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B(d). On January 19, the court docketed its expedited pretrial order, addressing th to certain subsidiary issues that, although not independent claims, nevertheless involve facts which are not in the record. See Boisvert v. King, 618 A.2d 211, 214 (Me.1992) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 10] Here, because there were no facts
holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding a trial of the facts was required on a rule 80bd motion where there was an issue regarding the timeliness of an appeal holding that where plaintiff fails to raise issue of timeliness of departments hearing at administrative level the issue is waived on appeal