2242 Archer Court, LLC v. Roberts

2023 IL App (1st) 221655-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 30, 2023
• Docket: 1-22-1655
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2023 IL App (1st) 221655-U Order filed: March 30, 2023

FIRST DISTRICT FOURTH DIVISION

No. 1-22-1655

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ____________________________________________________________________________

2242 ARCHER COURT, LLC; ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22 M1 707167 ) TISHI ROBERTS and Unknown Occupants, ) Honorable ) Perla Tirado, Defendants, ) Judge, presiding. ) (Tishi Roberts, ) ) Defendant-Appellant). ) ____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hoffman and Martin concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We dismissed as moot defendant’s appeal from the portion of the order granting plaintiff possession of the unit. We dismissed defendant’s appeal from the award of damages because she failed to present an adequate and proper record on appeal and otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 341 as to the contents of her appellant’s brief.

¶2 On September 29, 2022, the circuit court entered a default eviction order which granted

plaintiff-appellee, 2242 Archer Courts, LLC, possession of the property located at 2242 South

Princeton Avenue, Unit 106, Chicago, Illinois 60616 (unit) and a money judgment totaling No. 1-22-1655

$13,074.41 in past due rent and costs against defendant-appellant, Tishi Roberts, and unknown

owners. Defendant was ordered to vacate the unit by October 6, 2022. Defendant did not comply

with the direction to vacate the unit and she was evicted by the sheriff’s enforcement of the

eviction order. Defendant has appealed pro se from the eviction order. For the following reasons,

we dismiss the appeal.

¶3 Defendant’s notice of appeal stated that her appeal was from the eviction order and

incorrectly described the appeal as being interlocutory in nature. The notice stated that defendant

was seeking to vacate the eviction order and “no jurisdiction.” Additionally, defendant filed a

supporting record under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 328 (eff. July 1, 2017), but not a record on

appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 321 (eff. Oct. 1, 2021) as is required for appeals from

final orders.

¶4 Defendant subsequently filed an opening brief which claimed that the trial court erred in

“finalizing [an] order when they had no jurisdiction” and “did not allow me to speak during zoom

court hearings.” She asked that the eviction order be vacated. Defendant used the approved

standardized court brief form in drafting her brief. The brief did not include a proper statement

of facts with references to the record. Nor did it contain a coherent argument with citation to

authority to support her positions that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, that she was improperly

denied an opportunity to participate in a hearing, or that the eviction order should be vacated.

¶5 Defendant also filed motions to vacate or stay the eviction order. In an order denying the

motions, another division of this court found that because the eviction order had been executed,

the issue of possession was moot and “this court is without jurisdiction to undo an eviction that

has already taken place.”

2 No. 1-22-1655

¶6 Plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that defendant had not

filed a proper record and that the appeal was moot. With that motion, plaintiff filed a supporting

record which contains the eviction order and evidence that on November 21, 2022, the Cook

County Sheriff’s Office enforced the eviction order. Defendant did not file a response to the

motion. The division of this court which had heard defendant’s motions to vacate or stay the

eviction order entered an order taking plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with the case.

¶7 In its appellee’s brief, plaintiff argues that defendant’s appellant’s brief should be stricken

as “woefully deficient.” Plaintiff also argues that we should dismiss defendant’s appeal because

she has not provided us with a sufficient record to review her claims of error and because the

appeal is moot as plaintiff has regained possession of the unit. Defendant did not file a reply brief

and has not otherwise responded to plaintiff’s arguments in support of its requests to strike her

brief and dismiss her appeal.

¶8 First we review the adequacy of the record on appeal. Defendant, as the appellant, has the

burden to present an adequate record of the trial proceedings which would allow this court to

determine whether the eviction order was entered in error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389,

391 (1984). Defendant, apparently believing she was pursuing an interlocutory appeal under

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017), filed a supporting record with this court.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 328 (eff. July 1, 2017) governs the filing of a supporting record and

provides that it should contain “enough of the trial court record to show an appealable order or

judgment, a timely filed and served notice of appeal ***, and any other matter necessary to the

application made.” Even if the filing of a supporting record was proper under the circumstances

here, it does not contain the pleadings, service of process information, the eviction order, or the

notice of appeal. Additionally, defendant has not provided a transcript of the proceedings which

3 No. 1-22-1655

were held on September 29, 2022, when the eviction order was entered or a proper substitute for

the transcript under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323 (eff. July 1, 2017). Instead, the supporting

record contains information or documents which have no known relevance to this appeal and

appear not to have been filed below in this case.

¶9 As a result, we are without a record of the basis for the eviction order, the grounds for

entering the relief and the evidence or arguments presented to the circuit court when it made its

decision to enter the default eviction order which awarded possession and damages to plaintiff.

There is no record to assess defendant’s discernible claims that the circuit court lacked

jurisdiction and she was prevented from participating in any hearing. We have reason to either

affirm the eviction order or dismiss the appeal for defendant’s failure to file a proper and

sufficient record on appeal. See Graves v. Cook County Republican Party, 2020 IL App (1st)

181516, ¶ 39.

¶ 10 Next, we consider the adequacy of defendant’s appellant’s brief, which was required to

comply with the provisions of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Where a

brief fails to substantially conform to Rule 341 and frustrates our understanding and review of

the appeal, we may strike the brief and dismiss the appeal. Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App

(1st) 110287, ¶ 77.

¶ 11 Plaintiff has provided a list of various deficiencies in defendant’s brief. We find most

compelling its contentions that the brief contains no statement of facts or coherent argument with

reference to a record.

¶ 12 Rule 341(h)(6) requires the appellant to include a statement of facts, “which shall contain

the facts necessary to an understanding of the case *** and with appropriate reference to the

4 No. 1-22-1655

pages of the record on appeal ***.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Additionally, Rule

341(h)(7) states that the appellant’s brief “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)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). This court “is entitled to have briefs submitted that are articulate,

organized and present a cohesive legal argument in conformity with supreme court rules.”

Schwartz v. Great Central Insurance Co., 188 Ill. App. 3d 264, 268 (1989).

¶ 13 Defendant did fill in the section of the standard form brief titled statement of facts. In that

section, however, defendant did not provide a recitation of the procedural history or facts

necessary to an understanding of the case and she made no references to the record. Rather,

defendant provides largely irrelevant information in violation of Rule 341.

¶ 14 Finally, before considering whether to dismiss the appeal on the inadequacies of the

record and the appellant’s brief, we must consider plaintiff’s contention that this appeal is moot.

“An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists or when events have occurred that make it

impossible for the reviewing court to render effectual relief.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v.

Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129, ¶ 10. “The existence of an actual controversy is an

essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction, and courts of review will generally not decide abstract,

hypothetical, or moot questions.” In re Marriage of Nienhouse, 355 Ill. App. 3d 146, 149 ( 2004).

Whether a case is moot is an issue we review de novo. Benz v. Department of Children and Family

Services, 2015 IL App (1st) 130414, ¶ 31.

¶ 15 The purpose of an eviction claim is to determine “which party is entitled to immediate

possession and whether a defense which is germane to the distinctive purpose of the action defeats

plaintiff’s asserted right to possession.” First Illinois Bank & Trust v. Galuska, 255 Ill. App. 3d

86, 90 (1993). The eviction order granted plaintiff possession of the unit and required defendant

5 No. 1-22-1655

to relinquish possession by October 6, 2022. Defendant failed to comply with the directive of the

circuit court to vacate the unit but filed her notice of appeal on October 31, 2022. On November

21, 2022, the sheriff enforced the eviction order and defendant was removed from the unit and

plaintiff regained possession. Therefore, defendant’s appeal from that part of the eviction order

which granted possession to plaintiff is moot. See Circle Management LLC v. Oliver, 378 Ill App

3d 601, 607 (2007) (holding that the appeal of a forcible entry and detainer action was moot

where the trial court had entered a possession order and the appellant had moved out but applying

the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine); see also Georgakopoulos v. Blake 1, 2022

IL App (1st) 210668-U, ¶¶ 26-27 (citing Circle Management LLC in finding that the issue of

possession of the premises was moot because defendants already had been evicted from the

premises). Because defendant never responded to the motion to dismiss the appeal or plaintiff’s

arguments in its brief that the appeal is moot, she has forfeited any challenges to the application

of the mootness doctrine or any claim that an exception to the mootness doctrine exists as to the

possession order. Department of Central Management Services/Department of State Police v.

Illinois Labor Relations Board, 2012 IL App (4th) 110356, ¶ 26. We therefore find that the appeal

from that portion of the eviction order is moot.

¶ 16 However, the eviction order also included a money judgment against defendant for unpaid

rent and costs which was not rendered moot by the enforcement of the eviction order. As we have

discussed, defendant has not presented this court with an adequate record on appeal or a brief in

compliance with Rule 341. These failures frustrate our review of the damages award and for these

reasons we also dismiss the appeal as to the damages award of back rent and costs against

Rule 23(e) states that “a nonprecedential order entered under subpart (b) of this rule on or after January 1, 1

2021, may be cited for persuasive purposes.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(e) (eff. Feb. 1, 2023).

6 No. 1-22-1655

defendant as set forth in the eviction order.

¶ 17 For the reasons stated, we dismiss defendant’s appeal from that portion of the order

granting plaintiff possession of the unit as moot. We dismiss the appeal from the award of

damages because defendant did not provide a proper record sufficient to review her claims of

error, and her appellant’s brief failed to comply with Rule 341.

¶ 18 Dismissed.