Bank of America, N.A., Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-1359

Bank of America, N.A.,
Respondent,

vs.

Jayson Gilbertson,
Appellant.

Filed August 3, 2026
Affirmed
Harris, Judge

Scott County District Court
File No. 70-CV-25-5655

Derrick N. Weber, Stephen M. Kaminsky, Messerli & Kramer, P.A., Plymouth, Minnesota
(for respondent)

Jayson Gilbertson, Prior Lake, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Harris, Judge; and
Beane, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
HARRIS, Judge
Following the district court granting summary judgment in favor of respondent,
appellant argues that: (1) the district court erred by adjudicating matters that were not
properly before it, (2) the district court erred by making a ruling while issues concerning
his rejected finding remained unresolved, and (3) we should vacate the district court’s
2
order and remand for further proceedings because the record on appeal is insufficient to
permit meaningful appellate review of the district court’s decision. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Bank of America N.A. sued appellant Jayson Gilbertson, asserting that
Gilbertson breached the parties’ consumer credit agreement by failing to make periodic
payments. Bank of America then moved for summary judgment, contending that there
were no genuine issues of material fact that Gilbertson failed to make the required
payments, defaulted, and was liable for the outstanding balance and costs. Gilbertson filed
an affidavit in response to the complaint but submitted no other documents or otherwise
respond to Bank of America’s summary-judgment motion in writing. Court administration
rejected Gilbertson’s affidavit for failure to pay the filing fee and provided Gilbertson with
a deficiency notice. After a motion hearing, the district court granted summary judgment
to Bank of America.1 Gilbertson appeals.

1 On September 22, 2025, after Gilbertson filed his notice of appeal, the district court issued
a written order denying Gilbertson’s claim that he was exempt from garnishment of levy
of execution. Although Gilbertson filed related correspondence and Bank of America filed
a creditor’s objection to the exemption claim, Gilbertson asserts that he never requested an
exemption determination and alleges that the district court acted improperly by addressing
the exemption issue. Gilbertson also requested the recording from the summary-judgment
motion hearing, which occurred via the Zoom video-conferencing platform. He maintained
that the recording was necessary to verify the accuracy of the transcript, identify omitted
portions of the proceeding, and prepare for the pending appeal. The district court denied
Gilbertson’s request, citing Minnesota Rule of Public Access to Records of the Judicial
Branch 4, subdivision 3, which designates the transcript, not the recording, as the official
record of the proceedings, and outlines the situations when playing back a recording is
permitted. Gilbertson then moved this court to correct or supplement the record with the
recording. We denied Gilbertson’s request because he did not file the appropriate motion
in district court under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 110.05, which states that “[i]f
any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the trial
3
DECISION
Gilbertson challenges the district court’s summary-judgment decision. He does not
challenge the merits of the ruling but asserts that we should reverse and remand because
there were multiple procedural irregularities with the district court proceedings. He
maintains that (1) the district court adjudicated matters that were not properly before it,
(2) the district court made a ruling while issues concerning his rejected filings remained
unresolved, and (3) the record on appeal is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate
review of the district court’s decision. We begin with the issue concerning the adequacy
of the record for meaningful review and then address Gilbertson’s remaining arguments.
I. Gilbertson’s challenges to the record do not render it inadequate for
meaningful appellate review.

We begin by addressing Gilbertson’s argument that the record does not permit
meaningful appellate review. Gilbertson contends that the record contains “multiple
deficiencies” that prevent meaningful appellate review. He maintains that a “docketed
sworn filing” became inaccessible on Minnesota Court Records Online (MCRO) and that
the transcript of the summary-judgment motion hearing is incomplete and inaccurate.
The record on appeal consists of “documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and
the transcript of the proceedings, if any.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01. It is the appellant’s
burden to provide an adequate record for appeal. Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d
489, 494 (Minn. App. 1995). The record must be “sufficient to show the alleged errors and

court, the difference shall be submitted to and determined by the trial court and the record
made to conform.”
4
all matters necessary for consideration of the questions presented.” Truesdale v. Friedman,
127 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Minn. 1964). In addition, we do not presume error. Waters v.
Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944). Error “must be made to appear
affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon
the one who relies upon it.” Id.
Gilbertson does not explain which document is no longer accessible on MCRO, nor
does he explain which portions of the transcript are disputed.
2 He also does not identify
how these alleged deficiencies in the record undermine the district court’s summary-
judgment decision beyond the broad assertions that “the unresolved issues regarding
missing docketed materials and transcript verification prevent this [c]ourt from confidently
assessing the scope of adjudication, the treatment of filings, and the basis for the district
court’s rulings,” and that because “the record does not reliably reflect what materials were
before the district court or what occurred at [the] hearing, [this court] cannot determine
whether alleged errors were harmless or whether they affected the proceedings [in district
court].” Because it is Gilbertson’s burden to demonstrate error, and he did not adequately
brief his challenge to the record and no prejudicial error is obvious, we consider
Gilbertson’s challenges to the record forfeited. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons
Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (stating a “mere assertion” in a brief is
forfeited unless prejudice is obvious).

2 Assuming that the “docketed sworn filing” that Gilbertson references in his appellate brief
is the same document identified in a motion to correct the record in district court—
Affidavit (Index #7) —this document appears in the appellate record and is currently
available on MCRO.
5
II. Gilbertson did not demonstrate that the district court erred by entering
judgment for Bank of America before resolving other filings in the record.

Next, Gilbertson asserts that the district court erred by making dispositive rulings
before resolving his rejected filings.3 He argues that “[p]rocedural regularity requires that
filings accepted into the record be resolved before the court enters dispositive findings” to
“ensure[] that the scope of adjudication is clear, that the parties understand what materials
were considered, and that an appellate court can meaningfully review the decision-making
process.”
Like his argument related to the adequacy of the record on appeal, Gilbertson did
not include sufficient detail in his argument to demonstrate error. Gilbertson did not
identify, and we are unable to discern, which submissions he asserts the district court
should have resolved before granting Bank of America’s motion.
4 And Gilbertson did not
support his argument with sufficient legal analysis or authority. See id. Gilbertson also
did not present this argument to the district court. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580,
582-83 (Minn. 1998) (stating that appellate courts address only those questions previously
presented to and considered by district court and a party cannot obtain review by raising
same issue on appeal that was litigated in district court under new theory). For these
reasons, we conclude that this argument is also forfeited.

3 It seems Gilbertson is referring to the district court’s summary-judgment decision, but he
does not explicitly articulate this.

4 The record shows that an affidavit filed before the district court’s summary -judgment
decision was rejected by the court administrator for failing to pay the filing fee. And
Gilbertson did not file a response to Bank of America’s summary-judgment motion.
6
III. The district court’s order denying Gilbertson’s exemption claim is not within
the scope of our review.

Gilbertson argues that the district court erred by addressing an exemption issue
when he did not file a motion invoking the exemption statutes or requesting an exemption
determination.5 But the exemption issues Gilbertson raises are not properly before us.
“The nature of the appeal and the course of the [district] court proceedings
determine our scope of review.” Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107, 110 n.2
(Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 29, 1995). The scope of appellate review also
depends on whether issues were properly preserved and timely appealed. Minn. R. Civ.
App. P. 103.04.
This appeal is from the district court’s order granting Bank of America’s motion for
summary judgment. It is not an appeal from the district court’s September 22, 2025 order
denying Gilbertson’s exemption claim.
6 Gilbertson did not file a timely appeal from that

5 Minnesota Statutes section 550.37 (2024) lists several categories of property exempt from
garnishment. For example, the statute provides that exempt insurance proceeds,
beneficiary association payments, a minor child’s earnings, and certain employee benefits
retain their exempt status notwithstanding their subsequent deposit into a bank account,
whether held individually or jointly, provided the funds remain traceable to their exempt
source. Id., at subds. 10, 11, 15, 24. Although the statute affords broad protections to
qualifying assets, it expressly places “[t]he burden of establishing that funds are exempt ”
on the debtor. See Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 20.

6 The record shows that after the district court filed its summary-judgment decision,
Gilbertson submitted correspondence and Bank of America submitted a document titled,
“Creditor’s Objection to Exemption Claim.” The parties appeared for a hearing to address
the exemption issue, and the district court denied Gilbertson’s claim. Gilbertson objected
to the district court scheduling a hearing and deciding the exemption claim based on the
creditor’s objection that was before the court.
7
order. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 1 (requiring an appeal to be taken within
60 days unless otherwise provided by statute).
Although the filing of a timely appeal generally suspends the district court’s
authority to issue orders affecting the judgment under review, the district court retains
jurisdiction over matters that are independent of, supplemental to, or collateral to the
appealed judgment. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 108.01, subd. 2. Matters concerning
enforcement of a judgment are collateral. David N. Volkmann Constr., Inc. v. Isaacs, 428
N.W.2d 875, 876- 77 (Minn. App. 1988) (citing Spaeth v. City of Plymouth, 344 N.W.2d
815, 824 (Minn. 1984)). Because the September 22, 2025 order concerns a post-judgment
exemption claim, it relates to enforcement of the judgment rather than the merits of the
summary-judgment decision. Accordingly, the exemption issue decided in the
September 22, 2025 order is outside the scope of this appeal.
To the extent that Gilbertson is arguing that the cumulative effect of the alleged
procedural errors prejudiced him, Gilbertson also did not raise this argument with the
district court and does not support it with legal analysis or authority on appeal. Id.
Gilbertson merely asserts that the “procedural failures are interrelated,” and, when
combined, “reflect adjudication that proceeded without defined issue boundaries and
without a record demonstrating how submitted materials were treated.” We therefore
conclude that Gilbertson did not meet his burden to demonstrate any error on appeal , and
we affirm the district court’s summary-judgment decision.
Affirmed.