Source: https://casetext.com/case/thomas-v-lakeview
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:23:41+00:00

Document:
MARLON THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKEVIEW AS APARTMENT PEOPLE, Defendant-Appellee.
PRESIDING JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court.
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). Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County No. 08 M1 146630 Honorable Daniel J. Kubasiak, Judge Presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Gordon and Lampkin concurred in the judgment.
¶ 1 Held: Affirming judgment of circuit court where appellant has failed to present sufficiently complete record and court is presumed to have acted in conformity with law. ¶ 2 In 2008, Marlon Thomas (Thomas) secured a default judgment against Lakeview Apartments for $1,500. Approximately seven years later, Thomas filed a motion seeking payment of such amount from "Lakeview as Apartment People." The circuit court of Cook County denied Thomas's motion and ordered that "all matters in this proceeding against The Apartment People are terminated." Thomas initiated this pro se appeal and filed his initial brief. The Apartment People did not file a brief, and we entered an order taking this matter for consideration on Thomas's brief and the record only. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
As discussed herein, "The Apartment People, Ltd." filed a "Response of The Apartment People to Notice of Appeal," claiming no "knowledge or affiliation with any entity by the name of Lakeview Apartments." We recognize there is ambiguity and/or disagreement regarding the name and identity of the appellee in this appeal. However, for purposes of continuity and clarity, we refer in the case caption to "Lakeview as Apartment People," the appellee designated in Thomas's notice of appeal. In light of our disposition of this appeal, we need not resolve any confusion.
d) There is no judgment entered against The Apartment People, Ltd. There appears to be a judgment entered against, if any entity, a "Lakeview Apt.", [sic] but that judgment has no bearing or effect on The Apartment People, Ltd."
The response further provided that "The Apartment People, Ltd. does not understand what order is being appealed by Mr. Thomas or what claim is being made against The Apartment People, Ltd. in these proceedings." ¶ 9 In a filing on March 11, 2016, Thomas stated, in part, "Appellee committe[d] perjury under oath 3121 Apartment People year 2008 was name [sic] Lakeview and change there [sic] name to Apartment People[.]" He also stated, "Apartment People ask plaintiff did he want the apartment after viewing the apartment with possession of plaintiff 560 dollors [sic] and Transunion credit files plaintiff said yes he wanted apartment *** wait two or three days later and said they had to give plaintiff back and Transunion files had to live on streets." ¶ 10 On March 11, 2016, we entered an order taking the case for consideration on the record and Thomas's brief only based on the appellee's failure to file a brief within the time prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 343(a). Ill. S. Ct. R. 343(a) (eff. July 1, 2008). The order indicated that Thomas's motion was "not considered."
The docket sheet refers to the defendant as "Lakeview Apartment."
¶ 12 In his brief, Thomas appears to challenge the circuit court's order entered on June 25, 2015, denying his motion to freeze the assets of "Lakeview as Apartment People" based on his unsatisfied judgment for $1,500. However, we are unable to discern any coherent point beyond this basic contention. His brief lacks clear or developed arguments and otherwise fails to comply with the applicable rules of appellate practice. ¶ 13 Thomas's brief does not conform to many of the mandatory requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342. See Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8; Ill. S. Ct. R. 341 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013); Ill. S. Ct. R. 342 (eff. Jan. 1, 2005). Among other things, his brief: fails to comply with formatting requirements (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(a)); lacks a certificate of compliance (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(c)); lacks "Points and Authorities" (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1)); lacks a statement of the issue or issues presented for review (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(3)); lacks a statement of jurisdiction (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(4)); lacks a statement of facts "with appropriate reference to the pages of the record on appeal" (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6)); and lacks an appendix (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(a)(9); Ill. S. Ct. Rule 342(a)). ¶ 14 "In addition, Rule 341(h)(7) requires the appellant to present reasoned argument and citation to legal authority and to specific portions of the record in support of his claim of error." McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 15; Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). "This rule is especially important because, when reviewing a case, the appellate court starts with the presumption that the circuit court's ruling was in conformity with the law and the facts." McCann, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 15. Thomas's brief contains no citations to the record or to any authority in support of his position; he fails to "present reasoned argument." Id. As our supreme court "has repeatedly held[,] *** the failure to argue a point in the appellant's opening brief results in forfeiture of the issue." Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352, 369 (2010); Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) (noting that "[p]oints not argued are waived"). ¶ 15 We recognize that Thomas is a pro se appellant. However, "[t]he fact that a party appears pro se does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules for practice before this court." Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8. "This court is not a depository in which the burden of argument and research may be dumped." Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 80. "Although we seldom enter an order dismissing an appeal for failure to comply with supreme court rules, our sound discretion permits us to do so." McCann, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 20; Holzrichter, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 77 (stating that "[t]his court has the discretion to strike an appellant's brief and dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with Rule 341"); Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8 (noting that "[b]ased upon *** noncompliance, his appeal is subject to dismissal"). ¶ 16 Assuming arguendo that we are able to consider Thomas's brief, his arguments are not supported by the record. As the appellant, Thomas "has the burden 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, 391-92 (1984). "[I]n the absence of such a record on appeal, 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. "Any doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant." Id. Although Thomas filed a notice of motion regarding a hearing on June 25, 2015, the record indicates that he did not appear at the hearing pro se or through counsel. The record does not include a transcript, bystander's report or agreed statement of facts regarding such proceedings (Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. Dec. 13, 2005)). See Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392. The record on appeal, in its entirety, consists of the following: (a) a docket sheet for the circuit court proceeding; (b) the August 4, 2008, ex parte default judgment for $1,500; (c) "daily motion call" or "daily court sheets" print-outs (portions of which are illegible); (d) the motions and notices described above; (e) the circuit court order entered on June 25, 2015; and (f) Thomas's notice of appeal and request for preparation of record on appeal. Based on the record before us, we are unable to determine whether there was error, and we presume that circuit court's order is in conformity with applicable law and has a sufficient factual basis. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92. Even if we were to consider the additional materials submitted to this court, our conclusion herein remains the same.
¶ 18 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. ¶ 19 Affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.