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

THE B A MELLON AS TRU EQUITY

v .

JAMES PAMEL A

AP

J against of New Trust, i n following In a promis that App recover IN TH ANK OF NE N TRUST C USTEE FOR Y LOAN TR

Resp

.

T. J A C K SO A Y. J A C KS

Appe

PPEAL FRO TH Bef K ames and them in th e York Mello n a an actio g reasons, n its petition ssory note pellants wer the unpaid HE MIS W W YORK COMPANY, R GMACM UST 2006 -

ondent,

ON AND SON,

llants. OM THE CI HE HONOR fore Divisio Karen King Pamela J a e Circuit Co on Trust C on brought the appeal n, the Resp for $15,000 re in defaul balance o f SSOURI WESTER N.A., HOME -HE5, RCUIT CO RABLE MA n Three: J Mitchell, Ju ackson, ac ourt of Jack Company as by Respon is dismisse pondent cla 0.00 execu t of the pay f $14,866.3

I COUR RN DIST ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) W D ) ) Opi ) ) ) OURT OF JA ARY FRANC

oseph M. E udge and G cting pro s kson Coun s Trustee f ndent for de ed. aimed to be uted by App yment term 30 and $594 RT OF A TRICT D78497 nion filed: ACKSON C CES WEIR Ellis, Presid Gary D. Wit se, appeal ty in favor for the G M efault on a the holde r pellants on s of that n o 4.10 in accr APPEAL December COUNTY, M R, JUDGE ding Judge, tt, Judge from a ju d of Respon MACM Hom promissory r in due cou Septembe ote. Respo rued interes LS 8, 2015 MISSOURI

dgment ent dent, The B me Equity L y note. Fo urse for valu r 27, 2006, ndent soug st. tered Bank Loan or the ue of , and ght to

2

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

and con App. E.D nothing omitted) "W impartia these r e Liens f (internal standard "[ the proc None of transcrip at trial. claims i 348, 35 0

All conc

1 In each quoting M "[b]ecause standard erroneou s incorrectly conductin ntained in a D. 2015) (i for the app ). We are m lity, judicial equirements for Delinqu l quotation ds as a par [A]lthough w ceedings be f Appellants pt, this Cou Because t mpossible, 0-51 (Mo. A

ur.

of their point Missouri State e standing is of review for s admission y believe tha g a trial de no an approve nternal quo pellate cour mindful of l economy, s." Collect uent Land omitted). ty represen we prefer to elow preve s' claims on rt has no w this deficien their appe App. W.D. 2

ts relied on, A e Med. Ass'n s a question r claims involv of evidence at our applic ovo. ed transcrip otation omi rt to decide the challe and fairne tor of Reve d Taxes), 4 "We mus nted by lice o decide ca nts us from n appeal ca way of know ncy in the eal must be 2015). Appellants m n v. State, 25 of law, revie ving the suffi . Moreover , cation of a d 3 pt." Poke itted). "In ." Reno, 4 nges that ss to all pa enue v. Pa 453 S.W.3 st hold pro nsed couns ases on the m reviewing an be revie wing what e record on a e dismisse ___ Jose istakenly ass 56 S.W.3d 85, ew of the issu ciency of the , from their de novo sta v. Mathis, the absenc 461 S.W.3d face pro arties prohib arcels of La 3d 337, 34 o se partie sel." Id. e merits, the g the issues ewed witho evidence wa appeal ren d. 1 J.L. v __________ eph M. Ellis sert that our r , 87 (Mo. ban ue on appea e evidence to reply brief, ndard of re v 461 S.W. ce of such d at 866 (int se litigan bit this Cou and (In re F 40 (Mo. Ap s to the s e lack of a p s raised in out a transc as presente ders review v. Lancaste _________ s, Judge review of that nc 2008), for t al is de novo o support find it is apparen view would 3d 40, 43 record the ternal quot ts, but ju d urt from rela Foreclosur pp. W.D. 2 same rules proper reco this case." cript. Lacki ed and adm w of Appell er, 453 S.W __________ t claim is de the propositio ." This is no dings of fact o nt that Appe involve this (Mo. ere is ation dicial axing re of 2014) and ord of " Id. ing a mitted lants' W.3d ____ novo, on that ot our or the ellants Court