Court Opinion

ID: 9716304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:33:40.302695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:43.704570
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE DUNN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint based upon the Frauds Act (Bl. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 59, par. 2), I adamantly disagree with its conclusion that the trial court’s dismissal should be affirmed because plaintiff, a corporation, was not represented by counsel. This conclusion results in a substantial injustice to plaintiff. While the majority is correct that it may affirm the trial court on any basis supported by the record (Material Service Corp. v. Department of Revenue (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 382, 387), in this case, the majority is affirming the trial court based on a fact not at all supported by the record on appeal. There was no report of proceedings filed on appeal regarding the hearing on defendant’s motion, nor is there a bystander’s report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 323(c) (134 Ill. 2d R. 323(c)). The record contains only the complaint itself, defendant’s motion to dismiss and the trial court’s order. That order specifically states, “[Djefendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 282(b) is denied and Terry Laughlin can represent [pjlaintiff hereon [sic].” The record is silent as to whether Terry Laughlin is an attorney. The record reveals only that Terry Laughlin, as president, was representing the corporation pro se. In the absence of a complete record on appeal, it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis. (Foutch v. O’Bryant (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392.) Thus, there is no basis for the majority’s conclusion that it may affirm the dismissal of this cause because plaintiff was not represented by an attorney. I would reverse the portion of the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint based upon the Fraud Act, but affirm the portion of the trial court’s order finding that Terry Laughlin may represent the plaintiff.