20 2 2 IL App (1st) 200887

- U No. 1 -20-0887 Order f iled September 29 , 20 22 Fourth Division

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 DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ VERUNIKA DUJMOVIC , Petitio ner -Appell ant ,

v.
LUIS HERRERA , Respondent-Appell ee . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County

. No. 17 OP 74009
Honorable Raul Vega and Leva nder Smith, Jr. , Judges, presiding.

JUS TICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Rochford and Martin concurred in the judgment. O RDER ¶ 1 Held : We affirm the circuit court’s judgment where petitioner failed to provide a complete record on appeal to support her claims of error

. ¶ 2 Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order that, inter alia , denied petitioner Verunika Dujmovi c ’s petition for a protective order against respondent Luis H errera and granted his petition for monetary sanctions against her

. T he court subsequently denied petitioner’s motionNo. 1 -20-0887

- 2 - to vacate the judgment and granted respondent’s second petition for sanctions against her

. On appeal, petitioner argues pro se that the trial court’s orders should be vacated. W e affirm. ¶ 3 The record on appeal consists only of a c ommon law record, from which this court has discerned the following fact s. 1 ¶ 4 On June 16 , 20 17 , petitioner filed a pro se petition for an order of protection against respondent. Petitioner alleged that , on April 13, 2015, respondent “raped [her] and videotaped his friends raping [her]” and that thereafter the video was shown to others . S he further alleged that she

was later informed that a “picture” of her was posted online, that respondent and others were posting “still pictures” to pornographic websites without her consent, and that “harassing
comments” were “posted on twitter.” ¶ 5 The trial court denied the petition, finding petitioner’s evidence insufficient to support an emergency order of protection , but continued the matter to permit service on respondent. Respondent eventually appeared through counsel and the court continued the matter for discovery

. P etitioner obtain ed an extension of time upon motion to answer respondent’s written discovery requests but then failed to provide substantive answers

. ¶ 6 Respondent filed a motion to compel discovery responses , for attorneys’ fees, and for sanctions against p etitioner pursuant to Illin oi s Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002). T he court granted the motion as to sanctions, barring petitioner from “ using documents requested in

1 Petitioner obtained numerous extensions of time to file the record on appeal, stating in her motions that “correction” of transcripts of trial court proceedings was needed and noting her correspondence with the Circuit Court of Cook County’s Office of Official Court Reporters regarding the same. She also filed a motion to compel the correction of transcripts; we denied the motion on the basis that disputes over the accuracy of transcripts must be resolved by the circuit court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 329 (eff. July 1, 2017).No. 1 -20-0887

- 3 - discovery or hearing ” and from “ maintaining any particular claim[,] countercla im[,] or defense relating to any issue to which the refusal or failure relate [d] .” The court also granted respondent leave to file a petition for sanctions pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018). ¶ 7 In his petition for monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 137 , respondent sought reimburse ment for his attorney fees and costs , alleg ing that petitioner had filed the petition for protective order for an improper purpose and without factual basis. ¶ 8 On May 22, 2019, following a hearing, the court granted respondent’s motion for sanctions, imposing a $2,085 judgment against petitioner . It grant ed res pon dent’s motion for a directed finding on petitioner’s petition for protective order based on failure to present evidence, denied

t hat petition with prejudice , and denied petitioner’s oral motion for a continuance. The order noted petitioner was granted 47 minutes to present her motion in court but “continued to yell and argue with the court ,” and, despite multiple opportun it ies to provide testimony, she refused. ¶ 9 On June 21, 2019, p etitioner filed a motion to vacate the May 22, 2019, order and seeking sanctions against respondent

. 2 S he claimed that the hearing of May 22, 2019, was conducted

“ while [she] was removed for crying and placed in hallway” and that the order was entered in her absenc e . She also requested an extension of time to permit her to retain counsel

. ¶ 10 O n December 4, 2019 , r espondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion to vacate

. On January 7, 2020, he filed a second Rule 137 petition against petitioner for attorney fees, costs, and sanctions , in which he argued that her motion to vacate was factually and legally groundless.

2 Although p etitioner’s motion to vacate does not specify the court’s May 22, 2019, order, that order is clearly the subject of the motion.No. 1 -20-0887

- 4 - ¶ 11 On Ja nuary 28, 2020, p etitioner filed a response to the new Rule 137 petition , attaching, inter alia , images of police reports ; text message s related to the allegations in her petition for protective order ; a nd her “Affidavit” containing allegations of respondent’s past conduct and the May 22, 2019, hearing

. On February 26, 2020, p etitioner filed an “Amended Affidavit .” ¶ 12 On July 20, 2020, the court entered a written order denying petitioner’s motion to vacate the May 22, 2019, order and granting responde nt’s Rule 137 petition for sanctions against petitioner in the amount of $1,662.50 , the attorney fees respondent incurred as a result of petitioner’s motion to vacate

. The order noted that “ [d]etailed findings by the Court are contained on the July 20, 2020[,] record” and that allegations in petitioner’s motion to vacate “ were not factual and contradicted explicit judicial findings.” ¶ 13 On August 19, 2020, petitioner filed her notice of appeal , listing M ay 22, 2019, and July 20, 2020 , “including dismissal of the petition,” as the dates of the orders appealed from

. ¶ 14 Initially, we note that respondent, as appellee, has not filed a brief in this court. However, because we can decide the claimed errors witho ut the aid of an appellee's brief, we have ordered the case taken for consideration on petitioner’s brief and the record alone pursuant to First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp

. , 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976). ¶ 15 O ur review of this appeal is impeded by petitioner’s failure to submit a brief that complies with the rules of our supreme court. Her sole contention

— that the trial court “made a mistake by granting order for [respondent]”

— does not amount to a cogent legal argument. See Ill. S. Ct

. R. 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (governing the form and content of appellate briefs ). Petitioner ’s status

as a pro se appellant does not relieve her of the obligation to comply w ith mandatory appellate procedures. Holzrichter v. Yor ath , 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78. Although petitioner draftedNo. 1 -20-0887

- 5 - her brief using a form th at is approved by the Illinois Supreme Court, her fil ed brief omits the pages of the form that include the “Statement of Facts” and “Argument” sections , w hich are required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)

. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6), (7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Supreme C ourt rules are compulsory, not mere suggestions. North Community Bank v. 17011 S. Park Ave., LLC , 2015 IL App (1st) 133672, ¶ 14. Where an appel lant’s brief fails to conform with those rules, this court has the inherent authority to dismiss the appeal

. Epstein v. Galuska , 362 Ill. App. 3d 36, 42 (2005). ¶ 16 That said , our affirmance is mandate d by another deficiency : the absence of a record of proceedings. Petitioner, a s the appellant, b ears the burden of submitting a sufficiently complete record on appeal to support her claims of error

. Foutch v. O’Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391

- 92 (1984). Here, as noted, the record on appeal contains only the common law record. Petitioner has provided no report s of proceedings, or, in lieu of that, bystander report s or agreed statement s of facts from the relevant hearings. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 321 (eff. Oct. 1, 2021) (providing that the record on appeal shall include, inter alia , “any report o f proceedings prepared in accordance with Rule 323”); Ill.
S. Ct. R. 323(c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017) ( appellant may , where no verbatim transcript is available , file a bystander’s report, or the parties may agree by written stipulation to a statement of facts)

. ¶ 17 We acknowledge that the failure to present a report of proceedings, bystander report, or agreed statement of facts does not necessarily mandate a ruling adverse to the appellant if th e record as it stands permits resolution of the issues on appeal. Landau & Associates, P.C. v. Kennedy , 262 Ill. App. 3d 89, 92 (1994). However, here, t he record is so incomplete as to afford no basis for discerning error on the part of the trial court

— particularly given that the July 20, 2020, order states that detailed findings were made on the record and that petitioner neither testified norNo. 1 -20-0887

- 6 - presented evidence

. Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for protective order or in awarding sanctions against petitioner are issues that are “inherently factual and not amenable to review without a report of proceedings.” Landau & Associates, P.C. , 262 Ill. App. 3d at 92

. “ ‘An issue relating to a circuit court’s factual findings and basis for its legal conclusions obviously cannot be reviewed absent a report or record of the proceeding.’ ” Pate v. Wiseman , 2019 IL App (1st) 190449, ¶ 17 (quoting Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc. , 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156 (2005))

. ¶ 18 W here , as here, t he record on appeal is so deficient , a reviewing court cannot speculate as to what error occurred

. Smolinski v. Vojta , 363 Ill. App. 3d 752, 757 -58 (2006 ). Rather, we must “p re sume” that the trial court ’s judgments were “in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis” and resolve any doubt arising from the incompleteness of the record against the appellant

— here, petitioner. Foutch , 99 Ill. 2d at 39 1-92. Accordingly, as the record is insufficient to overcome the presumption that the trial court’s orders complied with the law and had a sufficient factual basis, we must affirm. See Wing v. Chicago Transit Authority , 2016 IL App (1st) 153517, ¶ 9. ¶ 19 F or the reasons stated , w e affirm the judgment of t

he circuit court of Cook County

. ¶ 20 Affirmed

.