Opinion ID: 2031948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lukens' Liability

Text: Finally, the defendants contend that the appellate court erred in finding that they waived their argument that the trial court's judgment against Lukens should be reversed based on insufficient evidence. The appellate court applied the waiver rule after determining that the defendants failed to raise the issue regarding Lukens' liability in its initial brief. The defendants maintain that the issue was sufficiently raised in their brief. We are unable to determine the propriety of the appellate court's ruling on this issue, however, because the defendants have failed to support their argument with adequate proof. Specifically, the record before us does not contain the defendants' initial brief filed in the appellate court. On review, the appellant has the burden of presenting the court with an adequate record regarding the claimed error ( Holston v. Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (1995), 165 Ill.2d 150, 163, 209 Ill.Dec. 12, 650 N.E.2d 985), and any doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant ( Foutch v. O'Bryant (1984), 99 Ill.2d 389, 391-92, 76 Ill.Dec. 823, 459 N.E.2d 958). In the absence of the proof necessary to resolve the issue, we must presume that the appellate court's determination was proper.