Court Opinion

ID: 9716827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:52:01.711976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:49.301582
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The circuit court’s order as to division of the property should be affirmed. I cannot agree that this cause should be remanded for further hearing on maintenance. First, it is the appellant’s responsibility to see that there is a proper record for review. A failure to do so is sufficient reason to affirm the trial court in this instance. The respondent argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding petitioner $200 per month as maintenance by order of January 6, 1988. There is no present order of the court requiring maintenance of $200 per month for 36 months. The docket entry of March 7, 1988, ordered the respondent to pay “one-half of his income from the tavern which totaled $500, the amount of $250 per month to the plaintiff, Ernestine Nicks. *** All other obligations of the present judgment are abated at this time pursuant to agreement.” The issue is not whether the respondent was to pay $200 per month for 36 months. The respondent does not question the court’s order of March 7,1988. There is no reason for remand. It is clear the trial court held hearings. A remand simply means, Mr. Trial Judge, you transcribe or prepare a bystander’s report on the matters heard, which justifies your decision, because a report of proceedings was not provided by the respondent.