Pittman v. Pittman , 2020 IL App (1st) 182660-U ( 2020 )

2020 IL App (1st) 182660-UNo. 1-18-2660
Order filed June 30, 2020
Third Division
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).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
RONNIE PITTMAN, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 18 M 1714150
)
DEBBIE PITTMAN, ) Honorable
) Alison C. Conlon,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE MCBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Ellis and Justice Howse concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court’s eviction order is affirmed where defendant failed to provide an
adequate record on appeal.
¶2 Defendant Debbie Pittman appeals from the circuit court’s November 8, 2018 order
granting plaintiff Ronnie Pittman’s motion to evict defendant from a certain residence. Defendant
argues that the court granted the eviction on improper bases and denied her right to a jury trial. We
affirm.
No. 1-18-2660
¶3 The record on appeal lacks a report of proceedings for the November 8, 2018 hearing. The
following facts are taken from the common law record, including the circuit court’s half-sheets
and orders, and the parties’ pleadings and motions.
¶4 Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 4, 2018, seeking possession of a certain residence
on South Elizabeth Street in Chicago. Defendant entered her pro se appearance and jury demand
on September 21, 2018, then filed an answer and motion to dismiss on September 24, 2018.
¶5 On October 6, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to evict defendant from the residence. In the
motion, plaintiff alleged that he and defendant were involved in ongoing domestic relations
proceedings. On June 29, 2018, the domestic relations court ordered defendant to execute a quit
claim deed to plaintiff for the residence. When defendant failed to do so, the domestic relations
court entered a judge’s deed on July 9, 2018, that granted the property to plaintiff. Plaintiff attached
the relevant orders and the judge’s deed to the motion.
¶6 On October 11, 2018, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s pleadings due to “fraud
on the court.” In relevant part, defendant alleged that plaintiff obtained the judge’s deed by
providing the domestic relations court with “false information.”
¶7 On October 26, 2018, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion to evict. Therein, she
argued plaintiff was “bound” by a May 21, 2013 order in the domestic relations proceeding that
granted her exclusive possession of the residence. She further argued that an appeal was pending
in that case, and plaintiff’s motion to evict should be denied until the appellate court ruled.
¶8 On November 5, 2018, defendant refiled her answer and motion to dismiss and attached a
new exhibit consisting of emails regarding her efforts to obtain the deed and refinance the
residence.
-2-
No. 1-18-2660
¶9 Following a hearing on the parties’ motions on November 8, 2018, the circuit court granted
plaintiff’s motion to evict. The record on appeal does not include a report of proceedings for the
hearing or substitute therefor. The court’s order states:
“This matter coming before the Court for hearing on pending motions, due notice having
been given and the Court being fully advised in the premises, both parties being present
and having an opportunity to be heard, it is hereby ordered that D[efendant’s] motion to
strike is denied, D[efendant’s] motion to dismiss is denied, and Plaintiff’s verified motion
to evict is granted based on the factual findings made by the Court based on that motion
and Defendant’s verified response.”
¶ 10 On December 7, 2018, defendant filed a motion to vacate the eviction order. She also filed
an emergency motion to vacate on December 10, 2018, and a motion for stay of eviction on
December 19, 2018. The court denied defendant’s motions on December 20, 2018. Defendant filed
her pro se notice of appeal that day.
¶ 11 On March 16, 2020, we entered an order taking this case on defendant’s brief only. See
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976).
¶ 12 On appeal, defendant argues that the circuit court erred in ordering her eviction because
(1) the ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) the court improperly disposed
of the case without a jury trial, and (3) the domestic relations court did not have jurisdiction to
issue the judge’s deed.
¶ 13 Although defendant proceeded pro se in this appeal, she nonetheless must abide by the
same rules as an appellant represented by counsel. See Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st)
110287, ¶ 78. These rules include the appellant’s duty to supply the reviewing court with a
-3-
No. 1-18-2660
sufficient record of the trial proceedings to support her claims of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill.
2d 389, 391-92 (1984). If a complete record is unavailable, the reviewing court must presume “that
the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis.”
Id. at 392. Any doubts arising “from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the
appellant.” Id.¶ 14 Defendant’s claims must fail because she did not provide a sufficient record from which
we can evaluate them. Here, the record does not contain a report of proceedings from the hearing
on November 8, 2018, nor is there a bystander’s report or agreed statement of facts. See Ill. S. Ct.
R. 323(a), (c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017). We therefore must assume that the court’s decision to grant
plaintiff’s motion and evict defendant was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Similarly, without knowing what discussions occurred before the court that day, we must assume
the court’s decision to proceed without a jury was appropriate, notwithstanding that the record
contains defendant’s jury demand. See In re Marriage of Pavlovich, 2019 IL App (1st) 172859,
¶ 20 (“Because respondent has failed to provide us with a sufficient record on which to determine
whether the trial court committed reversible error *** we must assume that the [court] acted in
conformance with the law.”); see also Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill. 2d 386, 398 (1996) (in the absence
of a report of proceedings, the reviewing court was required to presume the lower court’s decision
to strike defendant’s jury demand and proceed with a bench trial was proper).
¶ 15 We further note that the pending appeal in the domestic relations proceeding did not
deprive the domestic relations court of jurisdiction to issue the judge’s deed. As this court ruled in
that appeal, the domestic relations court’s orders were not final and appealable except for a finding
of indirect civil contempt against defendant. See In re Marriage of Pittman, 2019 IL App (1st)
-4-
No. 1-18-2660
161316-U, ¶¶ 50-57. Therefore, the domestic relations court retained jurisdiction to issue further
orders regarding the residence, including the July 9, 2018 order and accompanying judge’s deed.
¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, the record is insufficient to resolve defendant’s claims, and the
circuit court’s eviction order is affirmed.
¶ 17 Affirmed.
-5-