Hamilton v. McPherson ( 2020 )

2020 IL App (1st) 191793-UNo. 1-19-1793
Order filed December 3, 2020
Fourth 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
______________________________________________________________________________
DWIGHT HAMILTON, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County.
)
v. ) No. 19 M1 118130
)
JOSEPH McPHERSON, ) Honorable
) Martin Paul Moltz,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Gordon and Justice Lampkin concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We affirm the trial court’s judgment because the record on appeal is insufficient
for review of plaintiff’s claim.
¶2 Plaintiff Dwight Hamilton appeals pro se from the trial court’s order denying his
complaint alleging defendant Joseph McPherson violated their verbal agreement for the sale of a
vehicle and stole plaintiff’s property. On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred when it did
not view his evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
No. 1-19-1793
¶3 The record on appeal does not contain a report of the trial proceedings or substitute
therefor. However, the following facts can be found in the limited common law record, which
includes plaintiff’s pro se complaint, pro se motion to amend his complaint, and the trial court’s
order entered after trial.
¶4 On June 13, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant verbally agreed to
sell him a vehicle and offset the cost by $2000 in exchange for plaintiff producing a video
advertisement for defendant’s business. Plaintiff claimed that, after he completed the video,
defendant repossessed the vehicle without compensating plaintiff for the video or an upgrade he
made to the vehicle. Plaintiff sought $2500 plus court costs. On August 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a
motion to amend the complaint, alleging defendant also stole unspecified items from him and
requesting $7631.40 in total.
¶5 On August 30, 2019, with plaintiff and defendant present, the trial court entered judgment
for defendant after a trial. The written order contains no other details about the proceedings.
Plaintiff timely appealed.
¶6 On August 25, 2020, we entered an order taking the case on plaintiff’s brief only. See
First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 131, 133 (1976).
¶7 On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred when it did not properly consider his
evidence.
¶8 We initially note that our review of plaintiff’s appeal is impeded by his failure to fully
comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. May 25, 2018), which “governs the form and
content of appellate briefs.” McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12. Although plaintiff
is a pro se litigant, he “must comply with the same rules and [is] held to the same standards as
-2-
No. 1-19-1793
licensed attorneys.” Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78. Rule 341(h) provides
that an appellant’s brief should contain a statement of “the facts necessary to an understanding of
the case, stated accurately and fairly without argument or comment,” and an argument “which
shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the
authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6), (7) (eff. May 25, 2018).
¶9 Plaintiff used a form approved by the Illinois Supreme Court when filing his brief, but
provided no citations to the record and failed to make an argument citing pertinent legal
authority. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h) (eff. May 25, 2018). The fact section only includes citations to
exhibits attached to his appellate brief, but the record on appeal does not show these exhibits
were before the trial court. We cannot consider documents for the first time on appeal. See
Keener v. City of Herrin, 235 Ill. 2d 338, 346 (2009) (“A party may generally not rely on matters
outside the record to support its position on appeal.”). Furthermore, plaintiff includes no legal
argument, only conclusory statements with no citation to legal authority or the record. See Gandy
v. Kimbrough, 406 Ill. App. 3d 867, 875 (2010) (“The appellate court is not a depository in
which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). “Arguments that do not comply with Rule 341(h)(7) do not merit consideration on
appeal and may be rejected by this court for that reason alone.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.
Sanders, 2015 IL App (1st) 141272, ¶ 43.
¶ 10 Considering the content of plaintiff’s brief, it would be within our discretion to dismiss
his appeal. Zale v. Moraine Valley Community College, 2019 IL App (1st) 190197, ¶ 32 (holding
the appellate court has the discretion to dismiss the appeal where the plaintiff’s brief fails to
-3-
No. 1-19-1793
comply with Rule 341). However, because the issues in this case are easily resolved and plaintiff
attempted to use the proper forms, we choose not to dismiss the appeal on that ground. See id.¶ 11 Notwithstanding, the deficiencies in the record still prevent us from reaching this appeal
on the merits. On appeal, the appellant has the burden to provide a complete record for review to
support a claim of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). If no such record is
provided, “it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial court was in conformity with
law and had a sufficient factual basis.” Id. at 392; accord Wing v. Chicago Transit Authority,
2016 IL App (1st) 153517, ¶ 9. This is because in order for a reviewing court to determine
whether there was trial court error it must have a sufficient record to review. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at
392.
¶ 12 Here, the record reveals that a trial was held on August 30, 2019, and the court ruled in
favor of defendant, but this court is unable to determine the arguments presented to the trial
court, the evidence admitted or excluded by the court, or the reasons the court ruled in favor of
defendant. Under these circumstances, we must presume that the court acted in conformity with
the law and the judgment had a sufficient basis. Wing, 2016 IL App (1st) 153517, ¶ 9.
Consequently, we have no basis for disturbing the court’s judgment. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92.
¶ 13 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.
¶ 14 Affirmed.
-4-