Voepel Prop. Mgmt. Inc. v. Bates

• Decision Date: 28 June 2022
• Docket Number: WD 85073
• Citation: 647 S.W.3d 878
• Parties: VOEPEL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. as Agent FOR the OWNER ISLA PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, Respondent, v. Timika BATES, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

647 S.W.3d 878

VOEPEL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. as Agent FOR the OWNER ISLA PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, Respondent,

v.Timika BATES, Appellant.

WD 85073

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: June 28, 2022 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 26, 2022

Timika Bates, Liberty, MO, Appellant Acting Pro Se.

Julie Anderson, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Duvel Pierre, Kansas City, MO, Co-Counsel for Respondent.

Kyle Klucas, Kansas City, MO, Co-Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, P.J., Edward R. Ardini, Jr. and Thomas N. Chapman, JJ.

Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

Timika Bates ("Bates") appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County which found in favor of Voepel Property Management Inc. ("Voepel") on its Petition for Unlawful Detainer. On appeal, Bates argues that the circuit court erred in granting judgment to the Plaintiffs because the circuit court's judgment failed to consider Bates's right to abatement due to the breach of habitability requirements identified in a notice of abatement provided by the Housing Authority of Kansas City Missouri to Voepel. Because the record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the trial court proceedings, which renders review impossible, the appeal is dismissed.

On September 9, 2021, Voepel filed a Petition for Unlawful Detainer in the Circuit Court of Clay County, which sought the return of a premises in Liberty, Missouri, as well as statutory damages. Bates did not file a responsive pleading.¹ On December 15, 2021, the circuit court conducted a bench trial. Voepel appeared by counsel and Bates appeared in person. On December 21, 2021, the circuit court issued a judgment which found in favor of Voepel and against Bates on Voepel's Petition for Unlawful Detainer. The judgment awarded statutory damages and a private process fee and ordered return of the premises.

Rule 81.12(a) provides: "The record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented, by either appellant or respondent, to the appellate court for decision. It is divided into two components: the legal file and the transcript." It is the appellant's duty to file a transcript and a sufficient record on appeal. Rule 81.12(a), (c); B.N.A. v. Ready , 614 S.W.3d 14, 18 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). "A transcript of the trial court proceedings is necessary on appeal so that this court can ‘verify factual statement made by the parties in their briefs and ... verify which exhibits were admitted into evidence.’ " Indep. Taxi Drivers Ass'n, LLC v. Metro. Taxicab Comm'n , 524 S.W.3d 157, 160 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (quoting Zlotopolski v. Dir. of Revenue , 62 S.W.3d 466, 469 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) ). Without a transcript we are unable to determine if there is a basis for concluding an alleged error occurred, whether such error was waived or invited, or even whether an alleged error resulted in manifest injustice so as to constitute plain error. Equity Trust Co. v. Givhan , 604 S.W.3d 921, 923 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020).

In her sole point on appeal, Bates asserts that the circuit court erred in granting judgment to Voepel due to the circuit court's failure to consider Bates's right to abatement due to a breach of habitability. Bates's arguments regarding her right to abatement were based on a letter of notice of abatement that was apparently issued by the Housing Authority of Kansas City Missouri in June of 2021.² Bates's point on appeal asserts trial court error with respect to the trial court's failure to consider a defense. However, the record does not reveal that the defense was ever presented to the trial court, when it was presented, how it was presented, or the evidence offered or admitted in support of or in opposition to the defense at trial. Based on the record before us, we are...