2023 IL App (1st) 230129-U 

 FIRST DISTRICT,

 FIRST DIVISION

 December 18, 2023 

No. 1-23-0129 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

_____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN RE MARRIAGE OF:

GHEORGHE NISTOR, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

MIAHAELA NISTOR, 

Respondent-Appellee.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County, Illinois.

No. 2014 D 10686 

Honorable 

Regina Ann Scannichio, 

Judge Presiding. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Lavin and Justice Pucinski concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Where the record on appeal does not include the judgment petitioner appeals from, 

the appeal is required to be dismissed. 

¶ 2 The instant appeal arises from the trial court’s entry of a judgment of dissolution of 

marriage between petitioner Gheorghe Nistor and respondent Mihaela1 Nistor. Petitioner appeals 

from the trial court’s purported order denying his motion to modify child support, terminate 

1 Hereinafter, respondent’s name is spelled in accordance with her filings in the trial court.
No. 1-23-0129 

 

-2- 

maintenance, and recover “overpaid” maintenance. However, the record provided by petitioner on 

appeal does not contain a copy of the trial court’s order, and therefore petitioner has failed to satisfy 

the requirement of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 321 that the record contain the “judgment appealed 

from.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 321 (eff. Oct. 1, 2021). Appeal dismissed.

¶ 3 Gheorghe and Mihaela were married on March 27, 2004, and had two children during the 

course of their marriage. 

¶ 4 On November 24, 2014, Mihaela filed a petition for dissolution of marriage alleging 

irreconcilable differences and “extreme and repeated mental and physical cruelty.” As part of the 

relief requested, Mihaela asked for custody of the children and temporary child support from 

Gheorghe. The trial court entered an order on August 5, 2016, stating that “Gheorghe agrees to 

pay the sum of $496.00 per month as and for maintenance to Mihaela” and “Gheorghe agrees to 

pay the sum of $557.00 per month as and for child support.” On September 26, 2016, the trial court 

increased Gheorghe’s maintenance obligation to $512 per month and child support obligation to 

$578 per month, respectively. The marriage was dissolved on December 5, 2016, following a 

settlement conference. As part of the settlement agreement, Gheorghe agreed to pay $512 in 

maintenance and $578 in child support per month.

¶ 5 On December 19, 2022, Gheorghe filed a “Motion for Child Support Modification, 

Maintenance Termination, and Overpayment Recovery.” On January 17, 2023, Gheorghe filed a 

notice of appeal of “the court decision from December 27, 2022.” The record on appeal filed by 

Gheorghe does not include a transcript or court order from December 27, 2022.
No. 1-23-0129 

 

-3- 

¶ 6 Because petitioner’s appeal2 does not meet the minimum technical requirements of the 

rules of the Illinois Supreme Court (Ill. S. Ct. R. 321 (eff. Oct. 1, 2021)), we need not set forth the 

remaining facts. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 321 reads, in part:

“The record on appeal shall consist of the judgment appealed from, the notice of appeal, 

and the entire original common law record, unless the parties stipulate for, or the trial court, 

after notice and hearing, or the reviewing court, orders less.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. S. Ct. 

R. 321 (eff. Oct. 1, 2021).

¶ 7 Gheorghe argues that the trial court erred in its judgment from December 27, 2022. 

However, the record on appeal does not include materials that would be relevant to the issues 

raised by Gheorghe, including the trial court’s purported judgment from December 27, 2022. As 

the appellant, Gheorghe has a duty “to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings at 

trial to support a claim of error.” Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984). Gheorghe 

acknowledges this omission in his brief, asserting, “Multiple times I tried to obtain a copy of the 

court order from December 27, 2022, but with no success.”

¶ 8 The common-law record submitted by Gheorge includes his “Motion for Child Support 

Modification, Maintenance Termination, and Overpayment Recovery” filed on December 19, 

2022, and his notice of appeal filed on January 17, 2023. It does not include an order from the trial 

court addressing his motion. The report of proceedings submitted by Gheorghe includes only a 

transcript of the December 5, 2016, settlement hearing. The report of proceedings does not contain 

transcripts from any other hearings, including the purported December 27, 2022, hearing. Nor does 

it contain any adequate substitutes for transcripts, such as bystander’s reports or agreed statements 

of facts. See Ill. S. Ct. 323(c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017).

2 Miahaela has not filed a brief on appeal. On August 23, 2023, this court ordered the case taken on 

Gheorghe’s brief only.
No. 1-23-0129 

 

-4- 

¶ 9 Petitioner’s failure to meet the requirements of Rule 321 deprives us of the opportunity to 

consider the legal propriety of the trial court’s decision. See Best Coin-Op, Inc. v. Fountains on 

Carriage Way Condominium Ass’n, 239 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1063 (1992). Without transcripts or 

appropriate substitutes, we do not know what evidence or arguments the parties put forward, and 

we are without the benefit of any oral explanations the trial court may have given for its decisions. 

See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(a) (describing contents of report of proceedings).

¶ 10 Because the record does not contain the order of December 27, 2022, petitioner has not 

met the requirement of Ill. S. Ct. R. 321 to present the “judgment appealed from,” and the appeal 

must be dismissed.

¶ 11 Appeal dismissed.