2025 IL App (1st) 232197-U
No. 1-23-2197
Order filed February 10, 2025.
First Division
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 DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ BANK OF AMERICA, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22 M1 117907 ) MELAD A. ISHAK, ) The Honorable ) Timothy W. Wright III, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Pucinski concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the trial court as appellant has failed to furnish a sufficient record such that error can be determined.
¶2 Defendant Melad A. Ishak appeals pro se from the trial court’s entry of default judgment
in favor of plaintiff Bank of America in its action to collect on a credit card debt. On appeal,
defendant contends that the default judgment was entered due to his “non-presence” and the trial
court failed to acknowledge his circumstances on the day of the hearing. Defendant further No. 1-23-2197
contends that summary judgment should be entered in his favor because plaintiff failed to meet
professional and legal standards and violated the terms of its credit card agreement. We affirm.
¶3 The record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings. The following facts are
gleaned from the common law record.
¶4 On September 8, 2022, plaintiff filed a consumer debt complaint against defendant seeking
damages of $11,6713.79, for failure to pay a credit card debt.
¶5 The record contains an affidavit of a special process server filed in the circuit court on
April 12, 2023. The special process server averred that on April 7, 2023, an alias summons and
complaint was left with defendant’s mother at defendant’s usual abode.
¶6 The alias summons stated that the next court date was 10 a.m. on July 6, 2023, in Room
1101. Also attached was Circuit Court of Cook County, First Municipal District Civil Division
General Order 2020-12, Amended (General Order 2020-12). General Order 2020-12 states,
relevant here, that effective July 6, 2020, all civil cases would be heard via Zoom, and listed
courtroom “ZOOM MEETING IDS AND PASSWORDS.” The list of courtrooms appeared on a
two-page document, with courtroom 409 on the first page and the remaining courtrooms listed in
numerical order on the second page.
¶7 On May 1, 2023, defendant filed a pro se appearance.
¶8 On May 23, 2023, defendant appeared pro se and plaintiff appeared through counsel. The
trial court set a status date of June 27, 2023, at 11 a.m. in Room 1101.
¶9 On May 21, 2023, plaintiff emailed defendant notice regarding a June 27, 2023, hearing in
Room 1101 to be held “via zoom conference (please see attached zoom instructions).” Attached
was, relevant here, a copy of General Order 2020-12.
-2- No. 1-23-2197
¶ 10 On June 27, 2023, the trial court held an initial case management conference. Defendant
appeared pro se and plaintiff appeared through counsel. The court ordered the parties to the Early
Resolution Program and continued the case until August 1, 2023.
¶ 11 On July 6, 2023, plaintiff emailed defendant a notice of the August 1, 2023, hearing in
Room 1101 at 11 a.m. The notice stated the hearing would be held “via zoom conference (please
see attached zoom instructions),” and attached, relevant here, a copy of General Order 2020-12.
¶ 12 On August 1, 2023, the trial court transferred the case to the presiding judge for further
proceedings because the case was not settled. The court’s order reflected that defendant was
present. On August 9, 2023, the cause was transferred to Room 1102.
¶ 13 On October 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. Attached was a “Notice
of Motion” stating that on October 24, 2023, at 2 p.m. in Room 1102, plaintiff’s counsel would
present the motion for default judgment “via zoom conference (please see attached zoom
instructions)” and attached a copy of General Order 2020-12. The proof of service stated that the
notice was served on defendant by email and contained a certification pursuant to section 1-109 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/1-109 (West 2022)).
¶ 14 On October 24, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel appeared before the trial court. The court granted
the motion for default and entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $11,671.79 plus
court costs.
¶ 15 On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff “used” defendant’s nonattendance in the
“correct” courtroom to convince the trial court to grant the motion for default judgment. He argues
that he was not present at the hearing because “complex court documents” sent by plaintiff left
him “very” confused by the change of “Zoom room” from 1101 to 1102, which had a different
-3- No. 1-23-2197
Zoom identification and password. He contends that he waited in Room 409 for three hours and
attaches copies of screenshots from his phone in support. Defendant further contends plaintiff
failed to meet professional and legal standards and violated its credit card agreement. He asks this
court to vacate the default judgment and enter summary judgment in his favor as he was not heard
by the court “due to unintentional mistake.”
¶ 16 As a preliminary matter, our review of defendant’s appeal is hindered by his failure to fully
comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). While defendant’s brief contains
a narration of the case from his point of view, it lacks cohesive legal arguments, reasoned bases
for those arguments, and citations to the record in violation of Rule 341(h). See Ill. S. Ct. R.
341(h)(6), (7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). “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. Accordingly, to the extent that defendant’s
brief fails to comply with Rule 341(h)(7), his arguments are forfeited.
¶ 17 Moreover, defendant has attached copies of screenshots to his brief that were not presented
to the trial court and therefore cannot be considered on appeal. See Jackson v. South Holland
Dodge, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 39, 55 (2001) (documents not submitted to the circuit court are not properly
a part of the record on appeal and cannot be considered on appeal).
¶ 18 Considering the content of defendant’s brief, it would be within our discretion to dismiss
his appeal. Zale v. Moraine Valley Community College, 2019 IL App (1st) 190197, ¶ 32. However,
because we understand the issues defendant wishes to raise and have the benefit of a cogent
appellee’s brief, we choose to consider the discernible merits of the appeal. See Twardowski v.
-4- No. 1-23-2197
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 509, 511 (2001). That said, the deficiencies
in the record still prevent us from reaching this appeal on the merits.
¶ 19 On appeal, the appellant, in this case defendant, has the burden to provide a complete record
for review in the appellate court to support his claim of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 IL App (1st) 232197-U
No. 1-23-2197
Order filed February 10, 2025.
First Division
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 DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ BANK OF AMERICA, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22 M1 117907 ) MELAD A. ISHAK, ) The Honorable ) Timothy W. Wright III, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Pucinski concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the trial court as appellant has failed to furnish a sufficient record such that error can be determined.
¶2 Defendant Melad A. Ishak appeals pro se from the trial court’s entry of default judgment
in favor of plaintiff Bank of America in its action to collect on a credit card debt. On appeal,
defendant contends that the default judgment was entered due to his “non-presence” and the trial
court failed to acknowledge his circumstances on the day of the hearing. Defendant further No. 1-23-2197
contends that summary judgment should be entered in his favor because plaintiff failed to meet
professional and legal standards and violated the terms of its credit card agreement. We affirm.
¶3 The record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings. The following facts are
gleaned from the common law record.
¶4 On September 8, 2022, plaintiff filed a consumer debt complaint against defendant seeking
damages of $11,6713.79, for failure to pay a credit card debt.
¶5 The record contains an affidavit of a special process server filed in the circuit court on
April 12, 2023. The special process server averred that on April 7, 2023, an alias summons and
complaint was left with defendant’s mother at defendant’s usual abode.
¶6 The alias summons stated that the next court date was 10 a.m. on July 6, 2023, in Room
1101. Also attached was Circuit Court of Cook County, First Municipal District Civil Division
General Order 2020-12, Amended (General Order 2020-12). General Order 2020-12 states,
relevant here, that effective July 6, 2020, all civil cases would be heard via Zoom, and listed
courtroom “ZOOM MEETING IDS AND PASSWORDS.” The list of courtrooms appeared on a
two-page document, with courtroom 409 on the first page and the remaining courtrooms listed in
numerical order on the second page.
¶7 On May 1, 2023, defendant filed a pro se appearance.
¶8 On May 23, 2023, defendant appeared pro se and plaintiff appeared through counsel. The
trial court set a status date of June 27, 2023, at 11 a.m. in Room 1101.
¶9 On May 21, 2023, plaintiff emailed defendant notice regarding a June 27, 2023, hearing in
Room 1101 to be held “via zoom conference (please see attached zoom instructions).” Attached
was, relevant here, a copy of General Order 2020-12.
-2- No. 1-23-2197
¶ 10 On June 27, 2023, the trial court held an initial case management conference. Defendant
appeared pro se and plaintiff appeared through counsel. The court ordered the parties to the Early
Resolution Program and continued the case until August 1, 2023.
¶ 11 On July 6, 2023, plaintiff emailed defendant a notice of the August 1, 2023, hearing in
Room 1101 at 11 a.m. The notice stated the hearing would be held “via zoom conference (please
see attached zoom instructions),” and attached, relevant here, a copy of General Order 2020-12.
¶ 12 On August 1, 2023, the trial court transferred the case to the presiding judge for further
proceedings because the case was not settled. The court’s order reflected that defendant was
present. On August 9, 2023, the cause was transferred to Room 1102.
¶ 13 On October 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. Attached was a “Notice
of Motion” stating that on October 24, 2023, at 2 p.m. in Room 1102, plaintiff’s counsel would
present the motion for default judgment “via zoom conference (please see attached zoom
instructions)” and attached a copy of General Order 2020-12. The proof of service stated that the
notice was served on defendant by email and contained a certification pursuant to section 1-109 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/1-109 (West 2022)).
¶ 14 On October 24, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel appeared before the trial court. The court granted
the motion for default and entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $11,671.79 plus
court costs.
¶ 15 On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff “used” defendant’s nonattendance in the
“correct” courtroom to convince the trial court to grant the motion for default judgment. He argues
that he was not present at the hearing because “complex court documents” sent by plaintiff left
him “very” confused by the change of “Zoom room” from 1101 to 1102, which had a different
-3- No. 1-23-2197
Zoom identification and password. He contends that he waited in Room 409 for three hours and
attaches copies of screenshots from his phone in support. Defendant further contends plaintiff
failed to meet professional and legal standards and violated its credit card agreement. He asks this
court to vacate the default judgment and enter summary judgment in his favor as he was not heard
by the court “due to unintentional mistake.”
¶ 16 As a preliminary matter, our review of defendant’s appeal is hindered by his failure to fully
comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). While defendant’s brief contains
a narration of the case from his point of view, it lacks cohesive legal arguments, reasoned bases
for those arguments, and citations to the record in violation of Rule 341(h). See Ill. S. Ct. R.
341(h)(6), (7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). “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. Accordingly, to the extent that defendant’s
brief fails to comply with Rule 341(h)(7), his arguments are forfeited.
¶ 17 Moreover, defendant has attached copies of screenshots to his brief that were not presented
to the trial court and therefore cannot be considered on appeal. See Jackson v. South Holland
Dodge, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 39, 55 (2001) (documents not submitted to the circuit court are not properly
a part of the record on appeal and cannot be considered on appeal).
¶ 18 Considering the content of defendant’s brief, it would be within our discretion to dismiss
his appeal. Zale v. Moraine Valley Community College, 2019 IL App (1st) 190197, ¶ 32. However,
because we understand the issues defendant wishes to raise and have the benefit of a cogent
appellee’s brief, we choose to consider the discernible merits of the appeal. See Twardowski v.
-4- No. 1-23-2197
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 509, 511 (2001). That said, the deficiencies
in the record still prevent us from reaching this appeal on the merits.
¶ 19 On appeal, the appellant, in this case defendant, has the burden to provide a complete record
for review in the appellate court to support his claim of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389,
391 (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. This is because, in
order to determine whether there was actually an error, a reviewing court must have a record before
it to review. Id.
¶ 20 Here, defendant asserts that the trial court erroneously granted plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment when he did not attend the hearing and plaintiff failed to meet professional and legal
standards and violated the terms of its credit card agreement. However, the record on appeal does
not contain a report of proceedings from the October 24, 2023, hearing or an acceptable substitute
such as a bystander’s report or agreed statement of facts pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule
323. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(a), (c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Without a transcript or an acceptable
substitute, we are unable to determine what evidence was admitted or excluded at the hearing and
have no knowledge of what arguments were presented to the trial court or the court’s reasoning in
ruling as it did. Under these circumstances, we must presume that the court acted in conformity
with the law and ruled properly after considering the evidence before it. Corral v. Mervis
Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156-57 (2005). In the absence of a report of proceedings or other
record of the hearing, we have no basis for disturbing the trial court’s judgment. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d
at 391-92.
¶ 21 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
-5- No. 1-23-2197
¶ 22 Affirmed.
-6-