Buford v. Mello
| Decision Date | 27 March 2001 |
| Citation | 40 S.W.3d 400 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2001) Erica Buford, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Susan H. Mello, Defendant/Appellant. ED77605 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Barbara Ann Crancer
Opinion Summary: Defendant appeals from an adverse judgment, but did not file a transcript.
Division Five Holds: Without a transcript, this court cannot decide the questions presented for review.
Plaintiff, Erica Buford, filed a small claims petition against her former employer and attorney, defendant Susan Mello, to recover monies spent on an automobile owned by defendant and money representing a refund of court costs in plaintiff's divorce action. Defendant filed a counterclaim, which, as amended, sought money damages in connection with plaintiff's use of and agreement to purchase the automobile, the payment of her attorney's fees and expenses for representing plaintiff in the divorce action, a refund of wages paid to plaintiff, damages for defamation, and damages for abuse of process. After a trial de novo, the court entered a judgment that awarded plaintiff $319.82 on her claims against defendant and awarded defendant $1,000.00 on her claim for payment of her attorney's fees. The court denied defendant relief on counts one and three of her counterclaim and directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor on counts four and five of defendant's counterclaim.
Defendant appeals from those parts of the judgment that awarded a money judgment to plaintiff and denied defendant a recovery on her automobile-related claim. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in five respects: 1) in awarding plaintiff the monies representing a refund of the court costs in plaintiff's divorce action in which defendant represented plaintiff because defendant claimed a lien on those funds, 2) in reimbursing plaintiff for an emissions inspection she obtained for the automobile, 3) in reimbursing plaintiff for the value of a radio put in the automobile, 4) in not reimbursing defendant $250 paid on a repair bill for the automobile, and 5) in not compensating defendant for plaintiff's use of the automobile. We do not reach the merits of this appeal because defendant has not filed a transcript.
Plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a transcript. She argues that, without a transcript, this court cannot determine if substantial evidence supported the trial court's judgment or if the trial court correctly applied the law. We agree.
Rule 81.12(a) provides that the record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings, and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented to us. This rule requires an appellant to file a transcript and prepare a legal file so that the record contains all the evidence necessary to determine the questions presented to this court to decide. Bastain v. Brown, 28 S.W.3d 494, 495 (Mo. App. 2000). Without the required record, there is nothing for this court to review. Id.
The legal file reflects that the trial proceedings were recorded on tape. However, defendant has not filed a transcript of the trial. Defendant argues that all of the questions presented are questions of law, which can be decided without the transcript. She further contends that, even if the transcript were necessary, it would be respondent's duty under Rule 81.12(c) to file it or this court's duty under Rule 81.12(e) to order it filed. We disagree with both of these contentions.
Each point on appeal raises issues that require us to consult the trial transcript to determine what evidence was in the record and what proceedings occurred at trial to effect the challenged judgment. In some of the points defendant argues the court applied the incorrect law to situations represented by exhibits. We cannot determine whether the law was correctly or incorrectly applied without a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
...to the record. However, "these provisions do not relieve an appellant of the duty to compile the record[.]" Buford v. Mello, 40 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).4 In its reply brief, Realty claims that the legal file contained "the parties' Motions for [P]artial Summary Judgment" withou......
-
In re Marriage of Weinshenker, ED 85806.
... ... Buford v. Mello, 40 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Mo.App.2001) ... More importantly, husband has failed to file or deposit any of his original lettered ... ...
-
Indep. Taxi Drivers Ass'n, LLC v. Metro. Taxicab Comm'n, ED 104760.
...was offered with respect to those exhibits or on what basis or under what circumstances they were admitted." Buford v. Mello, 40 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (internal footnote omitted). "Claims attacking the trial court's conclusions cannot be reviewed without consulting the entire......
-
Jaggie v. Attaran
...containing everything necessary to determine all questions presented to this court, the appeal must be dismissed. Buford v. Mello, 40 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Mo.App.2001); Rhodes v. Zhang, 7 S.W.3d 7, 8 (Mo.App.1999); Bastain, 28 S.W.3d at 495; Martin v. Missouri Dep't of Social Servs., 997 S.W.2d......