2019 IL App (1st) 182471-U

No. 1-18-2471 

Order filed December 18, 2019 

Third Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

KECIA PORTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

TAWANDA BOWMAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Cook County. 

No. 18 M1 40450 

Honorable 

James J. Ryan, 

Judge Presiding. 

JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices McBride and Cobbs concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the trial court’s judgment where plaintiff’s brief is insufficient to 

ascertain her claims and she has failed to furnish a sufficient record such that error 

can be determined.

¶ 2 Plaintiff Kecia Porter appeals pro se from the trial court’s order entering judgment, 

damages, and costs in her favor against defendant, Tawanda Bowman, plaintiff’s former landlord. 

On appeal, she contends the trial court failed to apply the applicable law and erroneously calculated 

the judgment. We affirm. 
No. 1-18-2471 

- 2 - 

¶ 3 There is no report of the trial court proceedings in the record on appeal. However, the 

following facts can be gleaned from the limited record on appeal, which includes plaintiff’s 

complaint, the trial court’s order entered following trial, and plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.

¶ 4 In August 2018, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging that while renting a unit in 

defendant’s building, she was charged for electricity that was provided to other units and the 

building’s common areas, and seeking damages that amounted to three times the overcharge.

¶ 5 A trial was held on October 17, 2018. Following trial, the court found that defendant did 

not knowingly or intentionally violate the Rental Property Utility Services Act (765 ILCS 735 et 

seq. (West 2018)), such that treble damages were not warranted, and that defendant had established 

that electrical charges for the common area should have been $25. The court therefore entered a 

$375 judgment for plaintiff and assessed costs to defendant. On November 1, 2018, plaintiff filed 

a pro se motion to reconsider. On November 16, 2018, the trial court denied the motion, and 

plaintiff filed a pro se notice of appeal the same day. 

¶ 6 On August 8, 2019, this court entered an order taking the case on plaintiff’s brief only. See 

First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). 

¶ 7 On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court failed to apply the law, and erred in 

calculating the judgment. Plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly permitted defendant to 

submit electric bills for the common area that were dated after plaintiff moved out, and to assert 

an affirmative defense when defendant did not file a counterclaim or answer. She further argues 

that the court erred when it found that defendant’s actions were not knowing or intentional, and 

did not triple the damages because defendant refused to permit plaintiff access to the breaker-box 

and to timely install a “common area” electrical meter. Attached to plaintiff’s brief in support are 
No. 1-18-2471 

- 3 - 

certain documents from the circuit court and a letter from Commonwealth Edison. The letter from 

Commonwealth Edison is not included in the record. 

¶ 8 As a preliminary matter, we note that our review of plaintiff’s appeal is hindered by her 

failure to fully comply with Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. May 28, 2018), which “governs the 

form and content of appellate briefs.” McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12. Although 

defendant is a pro se litigant, this status does not lessen her burden on appeal. “In Illinois, parties 

choosing to represent themselves without a lawyer must comply with the same rules and are held 

to the same standards as licensed attorneys.” Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 

78. Supreme Court Rule 341(h) provides that an appellant’s brief should contain a statement of 

“the facts necessary to an understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without argument 

or comment” and an argument “which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons 

therefor, with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 

341(h)(6), (7) (eff. May 28, 2018). Pursuant to the rule, a reviewing court is entitled to have issues 

clearly defined with “cohesive arguments” presented and pertinent authority cited. Obert v. Saville, 

253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682 (1993). 

¶ 9 Here, although plaintiff used in part a form approved by the Illinois Supreme Court when 

filing her brief, she has failed to articulate a legal argument which would allow a meaningful 

review of her claims, and provides minimal citations to the record. An appellant is required to cite 

to the pages and volumes of the record on appeal upon which she relies “so that we are able to 

assess whether the facts which [the appellant] presents are accurate and a fair portrayal of the 

events in this case.” In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 58; see also Ill. S. Ct. 

R. 341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018). In the case at bar, the majority of the fact section of plaintiff’s 
No. 1-18-2471 

- 4 - 

brief is a narrative of the case from her perspective. Moreover, although plaintiff cites certain 

statutes, she cites no pertinent legal authority to support her arguments on appeal. See People v. 

Hood, 210 Ill. App. 3d 743, 746 (1991) (“A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly 

defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository into which the appealing party 

may dump the burden of argument and research.”). “Arguments that do not comply with Rule 

341(h)(7) do not merit consideration on appeal and may be rejected by this court for that reason 

alone.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanders, 2015 IL App (1st) 141272, ¶ 43. 

¶ 10 Although plaintiff attached a letter from Commonwealth Edition to illustrate the reason for 

the instant lawsuit, that letter is not contained in the record on appeal. It is well settled that the 

record on appeal cannot be supplemented by simply attaching documents to the appendix of a 

brief. In re Parentage of Melton, 321 Ill. App. 3d 823, 826 (2001). We cannot consider improperly 

appended documents not included in the record on appeal. Id. To the extent that plaintiff’s brief 

fails to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), her arguments are forfeited. 

¶ 11 Considering the content of plaintiff’s brief, it would be within our discretion to dismiss the 

instant appeal. See Epstein v. Galuska, 362 Ill. App. 3d 36, 42 (2005) (“Where an appellant’s brief 

fails to comply with supreme court rules, this court has the inherent authority to dismiss the 

appeal.”). However, because the issues in this case are simple and plaintiff made an effort to 

present her appeal by use of the approved form brief, we choose not to dismiss the appeal on that

ground. See Harvey v. Carponelli, 117 Ill. App. 3d 448, 451 (1983). 

¶ 12 That said, the deficiencies in the record still prevent us from reaching this appeal on the 

merits. On appeal, the appellant, in this case plaintiff, has the burden to provide a complete record 

for review in the appellate court to support a claim of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 
No. 1-18-2471 

- 5 - 

391 (1984). If no such record is provided, “it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial 

court was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis.” Id. at 392. This is because, in 

order to determine whether there was actually an error, a reviewing court must have a record before 

it to review. Id. 

¶ 13 Here, the record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings from the October 17, 

2018 trial or an acceptable substitute such as a bystander’s report or agreed statement of facts 

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 323. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(a), (c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Without 

a report of proceedings or an acceptable substitute, we are unable to determine what evidence was 

admitted or excluded at trial or how the trial court determined that defendant did not act knowingly 

or intentionally. Moreover, we have no knowledge of what arguments or evidence were presented 

to the trial court, and no record of the manner in which the trial court calculated the judgment. 

Under these circumstances, we must presume that the court acted in conformity with the law and 

ruled properly after considering the evidence before it. Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 

2d 144, 156-57 (2005). In the absence of a report of proceedings or other record of the trial, we 

have no basis for disturbing the trial court’s judgment. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92. 

¶ 14 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed. 

¶ 15 Affirmed.