in-the-matter-of-the-foreclosure-of-liens-for-delinquent-land-taxes-by ( 2014 )

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
WESTERN DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE )
OF LIENS FOR DELIQUENT LAND TAXES )
BY ACTION IN REM; COLLECTOR OF )
REVENUE BY AND THROUGH THE ACTING )
DIRECTOR OF COLLECTIONS FOR JACKSON )
COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) WD77244
)
PARCELS OF LAND ENCUMBERED WITH ) Opinion filed: December 23, 2014
DELINQUENT TAX LIENS; CHARLES )
SPEARMAN, )
)
Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI
The Honorable Marco A. Roldan, Judge
Before Division Two: Joseph M. Ellis, Presiding, Judge,
Victor C. Howard, Judge and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge
Appellant Charles Spearman appeals pro se from a judgment entered by the
Circuit Court of Jackson County confirming the sale of Appellant's property to the Land
Bank of Kansas City Missouri. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in
sustaining the sale of his property due to delinquent taxes because Respondent, the
Director of Collections for Jackson County ("the County"), failed to comply with the due
process requirements in that, after all written notices were served, the County failed to
take any additional reasonable steps to notify him of the tax sale. For the following
reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
On January 28, 2014, the circuit court entered a judgment confirming the sale of
Appellant's property to the Land Bank of Kansas City Missouri. In its judgment, the
circuit court concluded that the County "duly advertised said sale and offered [the
property] for sale at public auction on three successive days" and, after not receiving a
bid for Appellant's property "equal to the full amount of taxes, interest, penalties,
attorney's fees and cost due thereon," the Land Bank of Kansas City Missouri was
"deemed to have bid the full amount due."
In his sole point on appeal, Appellant contends that the circuit court's judgment is
not supported by the evidence because the County denied him his due process rights
by failing to take additional reasonable steps to notify him of the tax sale. Before we
can address Appellant's point on appeal, however, we must first take up the County's
motion to dismiss this appeal. In its motion and again in its brief, the County avers that
we should dismiss this appeal due to the deficiencies in Appellant's brief and the record
on appeal. We agree.
Rule 81.12(a) specifies that the record on appeal must "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
the duty of an appellant to furnish a transcript containing a record of proceedings which
he desires to have reviewed." Cantwell v. Cantwell, 315 S.W.3d 384, 386 (Mo. App.
W.D. 2010) (internal quotation omitted). In the absence of a complete record on appeal,
there is nothing for the appellate court to decide. Id.
2
Here, Appellant failed to file a transcript of any of the proceedings before the
circuit court related to either the confirmation of the sale or the foreclosure. Without a
transcript, we do not know what evidence was before the circuit court with respect to the
County's steps to notify Appellant of the sale. Therefore, the absence of a transcript
prevents us from reviewing Appellant's claim that the judgment was not supported by
the evidence.
Moreover, although Appellant submitted a legal file, it does not comply with Rule
81.12. Rule 81.12(a) provides:
The legal file shall always include: the docket sheet or case record, which
contains a complete summary of all events in the case; the pleadings
upon which the action was tried, the verdict, the findings of the court or
jury, the judgment or order appealed from, motions and orders after
judgment, and the notice of appeal, together with their respective dates of
filing or entry of record[.]1
Rule 81.12(a) also requires the documents in the legal file to "be arranged with a docket
sheet or case record on top numbered as page 1. The oldest documents shall follow
the docket sheet, with the remaining documents arranged in chronological order, ending
with the notice of appeal at the bottom."
The legal file submitted by Appellant does not contain docket sheets or all the
requisite pleadings and court documents, and what is contained therein is not
necessarily in chronological order. Without docket sheets or a complete and organized
legal file, this Court cannot determine the procedural history of this case. Thus, the
absence of docket sheets and a properly compiled legal file further hinders our ability to
review the due process claims raised by Appellant on appeal.2
1
The parties can "agree in writing upon an abbreviated or partial record on appeal or upon a statement of
the case." Rule 81.12(a). However, no such agreement was filed with this Court.
2
We further note that the County asserts that Appellant's due process claims are not preserved for
3
We are mindful "of the challenges that face pro se litigants, [but] judicial
impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties prohibit this Court from relaxing
these requirements." Cantwell, 315 S.W.3d at 386 (internal quotation omitted). We
must hold pro se parties to the same rules and standards as a party represented by
licensed counsel. Id. Therefore, although we prefer to decide cases on the merits, the
lack of a proper record of the proceedings below prevents us from reviewing the issues
raised in this case. Ford v. Murillo, 362 S.W.3d 67, 68 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
Accordingly, the County's motion is granted. Appeal dismissed.
________________________________
Joseph M. Ellis, Judge
All concur.
appellate review because, by not participating in the foreclosure proceedings or appearing at the
confirmation hearing for the sale, Appellant failed to raise such issues before the circuit court. The
County contends that Appellant should have raised his constitutional claims by filing a motion to
reconsider or a motion to set aside the tax sale with the circuit court. "[T]o preserve constitutional
questions for review on appeal, the constitutional issue must be raised in the trial court at the earliest
opportunity, consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure." Cmty. Fin. Credit Union v. Lind, 344
S.W.3d 875, 877 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). "[A] constitutional issue cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal." Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., 400 S.W.3d 442, 453 (Mo. App. E.D.
2013). Again, without a transcript or a proper legal file, we cannot determine whether the due process
issues raised by Appellant were properly preserved for our review.
4