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
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN TH MIS HE SSOURI COUR OF A I RT APPEAL LS WESTER DIST W RN TRICT THE BA ANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., N C AS TRU USTEE FOR GMACM HOME R EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006Y -HE5, Respondent, v. . JAMES T. JACKSO AND ON PAMELA Y. JACKS A SON, Appellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) D78497 WD Opinion filed: December 8, 2015 AP PPEAL FRO THE CIRCUIT CO OM OURT OF JA ACKSON C COUNTY, M MISSOURI TH HONOR HE RABLE MA ARY FRANC CES WEIR JUDGE R, Bef fore Division Three: Joseph M. E Ellis, Presid ding Judge, Karen King Mitchell, Ju K udge and G Gary D. Wit Judge tt, James and Pamela Ja ackson, ac cting pro s appeal from a jud se, dgment ent tered against them in the Circuit Co e ourt of Jack kson County in favor of Respondent, The B Bank on C s MACM Hom Equity L me Loan of New York Mello Trust Company as Trustee f the GM for Trust, in a an actio brought by Respon n on ndent for de efault on a promissory note. Fo the y or following reasons, the appeal is dismisse g ed. In its petition the Resp n n, pondent cla aimed to be the holder in due cou r urse for valu of ue a promis ssory note for $15,000 0.00 execu uted by App pellants on September 27, 2006, and , that App pellants wer in default of the pay re yment term s of that no ote. Respondent soug to ght recover the unpaid balance of $14,866.3 and $594 f 30 4.10 in accr rued interes st. 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 approve transcrip a ed pt." Poke v. Mathis, 461 S.W.3d 40, 43 (Mo. App. E.D 2015) (internal quo D. otation omi itted). "In the absenc of such record the is ce ere nothing for the app pellate cour to decide." Reno, 4 S.W.3d at 866 (int rt 461 d ternal quotation omitted) ). "W are mindful of the challenges that face pro se litigants, but jud We m dicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all pa l arties prohib this Cou from rela bit urt axing equirements Collect of Reve s." tor enue v. Pa arcels of La and (In re F Foreclosur of re these re Liens for Delinqu f uent Land Taxes), 453 S.W.3 337, 34 (Mo. Ap W.D. 2 d 4 3d 40 pp. 2014) (internal quotation omitted). l "We mus hold pro se parties to the s st o same rules and standard as a party represen ds nted by licensed couns sel." Id. "[ [A]lthough we prefer to decide ca w o ases on the merits, the lack of a p e e proper reco of ord the proc ceedings be elow prevents us from reviewing the issues raised in this case." Id. m g s " None of Appellants claims on appeal ca be revie f s' n an ewed witho a transc out cript. Lacki a ing transcrip this Court has no way of know pt, w wing what e evidence wa presente and adm as ed mitted at trial. Because this deficien in the record on a t ncy appeal renders review of Appell w lants' eal e v. er, W.3d claims impossible, their appe must be dismisse d.1 J.L. v Lancaste 453 S.W 348, 350 0-51 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). A 2 ___ __________ _________ __________ ____ Jose M. Ellis Judge eph s, All concur. 1 In each of their point relied on, Appellants mistakenly ass ts A sert that our r review of that claim is de novo, t quoting Missouri State Med. Ass'n v. State, 25 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo. ban 2008), for t propositio that M e n 56 , nc the on "[b]ecause standing is a question of law, revie of the issu on appea is de novo." This is no our e s ew ue al ot standard of review for claims involv r ving the sufficiency of the evidence to support find e o dings of fact o the or erroneous admission of evidence. Moreover, from their reply brief, it is apparen that Appe s , nt ellants incorrectly believe tha our applic y at cation of a de novo sta ndard of rev d view would involve this Court conducting a trial de no ovo. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
