Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Second Division
IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF LIENS FOR DELINQUENT LAND TAXES BY ACTION IN REM;
PARCELS OF LAND ENCUMBERED WITH DELINQUENT TAX LIENS; CHARLES SPEARMAN, Appellant COLLECTOR OF REVENUE BY AND THROUGH THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF COLLECTIONS FOR JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondent,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI. The Honorable Marco A. Roldan, Judge.
Jacqueline A. Sommer, for Respondent.
Charles Spearman, Appellant Pro-se.
Before Division Two: Joseph M. Ellis, Presiding, Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge. All concur.
Joseph M. Ellis, 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.
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 ...