Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03813/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03813-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elisha N. Kabanuk
Appellee
Dana L. Stuart
Appellant
Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3813

___________

Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Dana L. Stuart, * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Defendant-Appellant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

and *

*

Elisha N. Kabanuk, *

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2010

Filed: July 16, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company (VFTC) as trustee for the Burlington

Northern Santa Fe Investment and Retirement Plan filed this interpleader action to

determine the rights of Dana Stuart and Elisha Kabanuk, who each claimed to be the

sole beneficiary of deceased employee Lou Ann Thompson’s 401(k) account in the

Plan. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335 and 1397; 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Stuart and Kabanuk

answered, and Stuart filed a cross-claim against Kabanuk, seeking rescission of

Appellate Case: 09-3813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2010 Entry ID: 3684234
1

The HONORABLE RALPH R. ERICKSON, United States District Judge for

the District of North Dakota.

-2-

Thompson’s change-of-beneficiary document based on alleged lack of capacity and

undue influence. Stuart appeals pro se the district court’s1

 judgment entered in

accordance with a jury verdict in favor of Kabanuk.

On appeal, Stuart argues that she is the proper beneficiary because the evidence

at trial established Thompson’s lack of capacity when she signed the change-ofbeneficiary document and undue influence by Kabanuk and her mother, Thompson’s

sister. However, Stuart did not file a motion for new trial or judgment as a matter of

law, nor does the record on appeal include a trial transcript. Accordingly, Stuart has

failed to establish any preserved error or plain error in the jury’s verdict. See

Muhammad v. McCarrell, 536 F.3d 934, 938 (8th Cir. 2008); Meroney v. Delta Int’l

Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2010 Entry ID: 3684234