Joseph

The plaintiff, D Co., sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property of the defendant J. Thereafter, M Co. was substituted as the plaintiff and J was defaulted for failure to plead. The trial court subsequently rendered judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of M Co., from which J appealed to this court. On appeal, J claimed, inter alia, that D Co. lacked standing to commence this action because at the time it commenced this action it did not hold the note and had no interest in the note. Held that because the resolution of J's jurisdictional claim was dependent on disputed factual findings that could not be resolved due to an inadequate appellate record, and because that claim implicated the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court, this court was unable to review the merits of the appeal and the matter was remanded for a determination of the jurisdictional issue and for further proceedings according to law; in order to resolve J's standing challenge, this court had to determine if D Co. was the holder of the note or had the authority to enforce the note on behalf of another party in interest at the time this action was commenced, but the only indication in the record that the court reviewed the note was in its order granting M Co.'s motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure, in which it stated, in one sentence, that the original note and mortgage documents had been reviewed and were found to be in order, that statement was called into question by M Co. in its brief to this court, and, thus, this court was unable to verify what was in fact presented to and reviewed by the trial court, as there were no other findings in the record made by the trial court pertaining to standing, or even a copy of the note or a lost note affidavit referenced by M Co., nor did either party present this court with any transcript of any proceeding during which the court may have made findings or explained what it reviewed, and although D Co. attached to its motion to su