The Bank of New York Mellom Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee For GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-HE5 v. James T. Jackson and Pamela Y. Jackson

IN TH
HE MIS
SSOURII COUR
RT OF A
APPEAL
LS
WESTER
W RN DISTTRICT
THE BA
ANK OF NEW YORK )
MELLONN TRUST COMPANY,
C N.A., )
AS TRU
USTEE FORR GMACM HOME )
Y LOAN TRUST 2006--HE5,
EQUITY )
)
Respondent, )
)
v.. ) D78497
WD
)
JAMES T. JACKSO
ON AND ) Opinion filed: December 8, 2015
PAMELA
A Y. JACKS
SON, )
)
Appellants. )
AP
PPEAL FROOM THE CIRCUIT CO
OURT OF JA
ACKSON C
COUNTY, MMISSOURI
TH
HE HONORRABLE MAARY FRANCCES WEIR
R, JUDGE
Beffore Division Three: Joseph M. EEllis, Presid
ding Judge,
Karen
K King Mitchell, Ju
udge and G
Gary D. Wittt, Judge
James and Pamela Ja
ackson, ac
cting pro sse, appeal from a jud
dgment enttered
against them in the
e Circuit Co
ourt of Jack
kson County in favor of Respondent, The B
Bank
of New York Mello
on Trust Company
C as
s Trustee ffor the GM
MACM Hom
me Equity L
Loan
Trust, in
n a an actio
on brought by Respon
ndent for de
efault on a promissoryy note. Fo
or the
following
g reasons, the appeal is dismisse
ed.
In
n its petition
n, the Resp
pondent cla
aimed to be the holderr in due cou
urse for valu
ue of
a promis
ssory note for $15,000
0.00 execu
uted by App
pellants on September 27, 2006,, and
that App
pellants werre in default of the pay
yment term s of that no
ote. Respondent soug
ght to
recover the unpaid balance off $14,866.3
30 and $594
4.10 in accrrued interesst.
In their answer, Appellants generally denied that Respondent was the holder in
due course of the note and asserted defenses of estoppel, res judicata, and unclean
hands. They also asserted several counterclaims.
The case was tried to the court on February 15, 2015. The trial court
subsequently entered its judgment finding that Respondent was the holder of the note
and had standing to bring the action. It further found that Appellants had failed to prove
any of their affirmative defenses or counterclaims. The court entered judgment in favor
of Respondent for $15,460.40.
Appellants bring eight points on appeal. In the first six points, they claim that
various factual findings made by the trial court were not supported by the evidence or
were against the weight of the evidence. In the seventh point, they contend that the trial
court erred in concluding that Respondent had standing to bring an action on the note
because its conclusion was based upon evidence that should not have been admitted at
trial. In their final point, Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that they
failed to prove their counterclaims based upon the evidence they presented at trial.
None of these claims can be properly reviewed by this Court on appeal without a trial
transcript.
Appellants have not filed a transcript of the trial proceedings in this Court. "Rule
81.12 specifies the record which must be provided by an appellant on appeal and
imposes upon an appellant the duty to file the transcript and prepare a legal file so that
the record contains all evidence necessary to make determinations on the issues
raised." Reno v. Reno, 461 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (internal quotation
omitted). "The responsibility to provide a meaningful transcript for review devolves upon
appellant and the court of appeals cannot consider matters not preserved on the record
2
and con
ntained in an
a approve
ed transcrip
pt." Poke v. Mathis, 461 S.W.3d 40, 43 (Mo.
App. E.D
D. 2015) (internal quo
otation omiitted). "In the absencce of such record the
ere is
nothing for the app
pellate courrt to decide." Reno, 4
461 S.W.3d
d at 866 (intternal quotation
omitted)).
"W
We are mindful
m of the challenges that face pro se litigants, but jud
dicial
impartiality, judiciall economy, and fairness to all pa
arties prohib
bit this Cou
urt from rela
axing
equirements
these re s." Collecttor of Reve
enue v. Pa
arcels of La
and (In re F
Foreclosurre of
Liens for
f Delinqu
uent Land
d Taxes), 453
4 S.W.3
3d 337, 34
40 (Mo. Ap
pp. W.D. 2
2014)
(internall quotation omitted). "We mus
st hold pro
o se parties to the ssame rules and
standard
ds as a party represen
nted by licensed counssel." Id.
"[[A]lthough we
w prefer to
o decide ca
ases on the
e merits, the
e lack of a p
proper reco
ord of
the proc
ceedings be
elow prevents us from
m reviewing
g the issuess raised in this case." Id.
None off Appellants
s' claims on
n appeal ca
an be revie
ewed witho
out a transccript. Lackiing a
transcrip
pt, this Court has no way
w of know
wing what e
evidence wa
as presente
ed and adm
mitted
at trial. Because this
t deficien
ncy in the record on a
appeal renders review
w of Appelllants'
claims impossible, their appe e dismisse d.1 J.L. v
eal must be v. Lancaste
er, 453 S.W
W.3d
348, 350
0-51 (Mo. App.
A W.D. 2015).
2
___
__________ _________ __________
____
Jose
eph M. Elliss, Judge
All concur.
1
In each of their pointts relied on, Appellants
A mistakenly asssert that our rreview of thatt claim is de novo,
quoting Missouri
M Statee Med. Ass'n n v. State, 25
56 S.W.3d 85,, 87 (Mo. bannc 2008), for tthe propositioon that
"[b]ecausee standing iss a question of law, revie ew of the issuue on appea al is de novo." This is no ot our
standard of review forr claims involv ving the sufficiency of the
e evidence to
o support finddings of fact o or the
erroneous s admission of evidence. Moreover,, from their reply brief, it is apparen nt that Appe ellants
incorrectly
y believe thaat our applic d novo sta ndard of revview would involve this Court
cation of a de
conducting a trial de no
ovo.
3