Db v. Dh, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1247

D.B. petitioned for protection against D.H. under the Adult Abuse Act alleging harassment via repeated phone calls to business and cellular lines, threatening conduct toward D.B. and her family.
D.B. alleged on December 9, 2010, bricks were thrown at her place of business; on January 20, 2011, D.H. shot out the windows of D.B.'s car with a pellet gun.
The trial court issued an ex parte order and set a hearing; after a February 16, 2011 hearing with both parties, the court granted a full order of protection effective until August 21, 2011.
D.H. appeals pro se challenging (1) lack of required findings and denial of cross-examination/rebuttal, and (2) sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a transcript and thus an incomplete record under Rule 81.12(a)-(c).
The court held the record insufficient to review whether findings were made, whether questioning was allowed, or whether the evidence supported the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly made required findings and allowed cross-examination.	D.H. argues the hearing lacked required findings and denied witness questioning/rebuttal.	D.B. contends procedures were followed and evidence supported the order.	Appeal dismissed for lack of transcript; record insufficient to review.
Whether the order was supported by the evidence in the record.	D.H. contends the evidence does not support the full order.	D.B. contends the evidence supports the order.	Appeal dismissed for lack of transcript; record insufficient to review.

Davis v. Davis, 222 S.W.3d 335 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (appellate review requires a proper record for determining error)
State v. Charron, 743 S.W.2d 436 (Mo.App. E.D.1987) (appellant must provide transcript on appeal)
Bastain v. Brown, 28 S.W.3d 494 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (pro se litigants bound by same rules as attorneys)