Court Opinion

ID: 9530549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:00:58.204243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:09.549169
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KNECHT, specially concurring: I concur with the result but write separately to address the lack of a transcript. Each judge on the courts of review may believe the practices in their home county or circuit are representative of the rest of the state. In fact, courtroom procedures and practices vary from county to county. McLean County is large, prosperous, and continuing to grow. It has excellent court facilities, a respected trial bar, and an excellent judiciary. What it apparently does not have is a sufficient number of court reporters to provide a record in the contested dissolution of a 26-year marriage involving maintenance, retirement accounts, the valuation of assets, and an expert witness. I do not know if that is a problem in other counties. At oral argument, we learned the parties arrived for their trial court hearing and discovered no court reporter would be available. At that point, counsel had to make a difficult choice — to seek a continuance until a reporter might be available, to seek a continuance to call a private court reporter, or to proceed to hearing hoping a record would not be necessary. Clients seeking a dissolution do not want further delay, and court settings are a precious commodity. Private court reporters are expensive. Counsel here elected to proceed to hearing. That choice, which was an exercise in judgment, was practical and does not deserve criticism. The criticism is for a system that expects citizens to use the courtroom to resolve disputes but fails to provide a component essential to the orderly administration of justice — a record. When a system provides a record in some cases but not others, it is making a value judgment that tells some citizens your case is a low priority. It is no surprise a matrimonial case was the subject of this prioritizing. It is no answer to require litigants to hire their own court reporters. The expense to families already suffering economic upset from a dissolution would have damaging consequences. Private reporters are essential to the preparation of many civil cases, but once in court, the reporter should be official and serve the court and system. A bystander’s report may have been a weak substitute for a record (166 Ill. 2d R. 323(c)), but the retirement of the judge who heard the case made that difficult. In a matrimonial case without a court reporter — for whatever reason — the trial judge has increased responsibility to be as complete as possible in defining the parties’ respective gross and net incomes, why certain awards are made, and what dates are being used to set values. Detailed findings in an order would enable us to conduct a better review in this case. This special concurrence is not a brief for the electronic recording of hearings and trials. I prefer a record prepared by a professional, certified, experienced court reporter who is able to work in partnership with a trial judge to prevent the attorneys from talking over one another, or talking too rapidly, or a witness giving a muffled, unintelligible response. The complete record is best produced by an official court reporter, and a record is the key to meaningful appellate review.