Steven C. Wang, Schneider Law Firm, 706 First Street South, P.O. Box 776, Willmar, MN 56201 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.

CRIPPEN, Judge

Appellant Terrance Dokken challenges the trial court's judgment, alleging the court relied on evidence that was not competent either to support respondent's claim or to toll the applicable statute of limitations. Because his assertions cannot be reviewed without a transcript, which appellant did not provide, we affirm.

In April 1989 respondent Brian Sherry gave appellant Dokken $7,385 with which appellant was to purchase rare coins for respondent. Respondent says he never received any of the coins but that appellant promised to reimburse him.

Because he got the "run around" from appellant, respondent Sherry filed suit in conciliation court. The conciliation court ordered judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant removed the case to district court and made a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the statute of limitations had run on respondent's claim. The court held a hearing at which testimony evidently was taken, denied appellant's motion for summary judgment, and awarded respondent Sherry a judgment for $7,426.

Improper Testimony

According to appellant, the trial court's findings of fact are partly based on statements the court elicited from respondent Sherry at the hearing. Appellant Dokken argues that such statements cannot properly be a basis for a judgment because he had no notice that testimony would be taken and respondent's statements were not made under oath or subject to cross-examination.

An appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record. Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Minn. App. 1995). The record must be "sufficient to show the alleged errors and all matters necessary for consideration of the questions presented." Truesdale v. Friedman, 267 Minn. 402, 404, 127 N.W.2d 277, 279 (1964). But appellant Dokken has not provided this court with a transcript of the hearing. Thus there is nothing in the record to permit review of his claims. Because "[e]rror cannot be presumed," Noltimier v. Noltimier, 280 Minn. 28, 29, 157 N.W.2d 530, 531 (1968), we affirm the trial court on this issue.

Statute of Limitations

The trial court found that the statute of limitations on respondent's claim had not run due to appellant's "continuing promises to pay." Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to show either the existence of such promises or reasonable reliance by Sherry.[1] But a reviewing court cannot consider a sufficiency-of-evidence issue unless provided with a transcript. Godbout v. Norton, 262 N.W.2d 374, 376 (Minn. 1977). If the record is insufficient to support review, the appeal may be dismissed. Noltimier, 280 Minn. at 29, 157 N.W.2d at 531. Because we cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the existence of promises or reasonable reliance, we affirm the district court judgment.

Appellant also argues that respondent included documents not in the record in his appeal brief. Because appellant's case is flawed due to the lack of a transcript, this court has had no occasion to explore the materials submitted by respondent.

Affirmed.

[1] Promises lulling a plaintiff into inactivity may estop a defendant from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense. Albachten v. Bradley, 212 Minn. 359, 369-70, 3 N.W.2d 783, 788 (1942). But a plaintiff claiming estoppel must show that the defendant made material misrepresentations on which the plaintiff reasonably relied to his detriment. Brenner v. Nordby, 306 N.W.2d 126, 127 (Minn. 1981).