Case Name: VANGUARD FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Dana L. STUART, Defendant-Appellant, and Elisha N. Kabanuk, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-16
Citations: 387 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 09-3813
Parties: VANGUARD FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Dana L. STUART, Defendant-Appellant, and Elisha N. Kabanuk, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
VANGUARD FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Dana L. STUART, Defendant-Appellant, and Elisha N. Kabanuk, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-3813.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 5, 2010.
Filed: July 16, 2010.
Douglas W. Gigler, Nilles Law Firm, Fargo, ND, for Plaintiff.
William James Brudvik, Brudvik Law Offices, Mayville, ND, Sara K. Sorenson, Ohnstad & Twichell, West Fargo, ND, for Defendant-Appellee.
Dana L. Stuart, New England, ND, pro se.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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 Thompson's change-of-benefieiary document based on alleged lack of capacity and undue influence. Stuart appeals pro se the district court's 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 ehange-of-benefi-ciary 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.
. The HONORABLE RALPH R. ERICKSON, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.