Raza v. Sabri

2019 IL App (1st) 190001-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: December 9, 2019
• Docket: 1-19-0001
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2019 IL App (1st) 190091-U No. 1-19-0091 December 9, 2019 First 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ CHAUDHRY RAZA, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 16 D 568 ) KHALIDA SABRI, ) Honorable ) David E. Haracz, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hyman and Pierce concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We affirm the trial court’s judgment where appellant’s brief is insufficient to ascertain claims and to support claims of error on appeal.

¶2 Respondent Khalida Sabri appeals pro se from the trial court’s order granting the

dissolution of her marriage to petitioner Chaudhry Raza. On appeal, respondent contends that

petitioner initiated the divorce as part of an immigration scheme to obtain a visa for his second No. 1-19-0091

wife and that the dissolution case should be “dismissed” so that the divorce can be settled pursuant

to Islamic law in Pakistan. We affirm.

¶3 The record on appeal does not contain a report of the trial court proceedings. However, the

following facts can be gleaned from the limited record on appeal, which includes the petition for

dissolution of marriage, the judgment for dissolution of marriage, and the allocation of parental

responsibilities and parenting plan.

¶4 In January 2016, petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage from respondent.

The petition alleged that the parties, who were residents of Illinois, married in August 1997 in

Pakistan, separated in October 2015, and had two minor children.

¶5 On December 17, 2018, the trial court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage

following a hearing during which petitioner and respondent testified. The trial court’s order

indicates that it also heard the testimony of respondent’s “several witnesses.” The trial court found

that irreconcilable differences caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, efforts at

reconciliation had failed, and future attempts at reconciliation would be impracticable and not in

the family’s best interests. The court also found that respondent’s pro se oral motion to dismiss

the petition based upon the failure of petitioner to prove grounds was without legal basis as the

parties had been separated for several years and suffered irreconcilable differences. The court

entered a separate judgment for the allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting plan.

¶6 On January 9, 2019, respondent filed a pro se notice of appeal from the judgment for

dissolution of marriage. On October 2, 2019, this court entered an order taking the case on

respondent’s brief only. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis, Construction Corp., 63 Ill.

2d 128, 133 (1976).

-2- No. 1-19-0091

¶7 On appeal, respondent contends that the divorce was a scheme by petitioner so that he can

obtain a visa for his second wife and that the case should be dismissed because the marriage took

place in Pakistan, and consequently, the divorce should be settled there pursuant to Islamic law.

¶8 As a preliminary matter, we note that our review of respondent’s appeal is hindered by her

failure to fully comply with 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

respondent is a pro se litigant, this status does not lessen her burden on appeal. “In Illinois, parties

choosing to represent themselves without a lawyer must comply with the same rules and are held

to the same standards as licensed attorneys.” Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶

78. Supreme Court 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). Pursuant to the rule, a reviewing court is entitled to have

issues clearly defined with “cohesive arguments” presented and pertinent authority cited. Obert v.

Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682 (1993).

¶9 Although respondent used in part a form approved by the Illinois Supreme Court when

filing her brief, she has failed to articulate a legal argument which would allow a meaningful

review of her claims, and provides no citations to the record. An appellant is required to cite to the

pages and volumes of the record on appeal upon which she relies “so that we are able to assess

whether the facts which [the appellant] presents are accurate and a fair portrayal of the events in

this case.” In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 58; see also Ill. S. Ct. R.

-3- No. 1-19-0091

341(h)(7) (eff. May 25, 2018). Here, respondent’s brief is a narrative of the case from her

perspective. Moreover, respondent cites no legal authority to support her arguments on appeal. See

People v. Hood, 210 Ill. App. 3d 743, 746 (1991) (“A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues

clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository into which the

appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.”). “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 respondent’s brief, it would be within our discretion to dismiss

the instant appeal. See Epstein v. Galuska, 362 Ill. App. 3d 36, 42 (2005) (“Where an appellant’s

brief fails to comply with supreme court rules, this court has the inherent authority to dismiss the

appeal.”). However, because the issues in this case are simple and respondent made an effort to

present her appeal by use of the approved form brief, we choose not to dismiss the appeal on that

ground. See Harvey v. Carponelli, 117 Ill. App. 3d 448, 451 (1983).

¶ 11 The deficiencies in the record prevent us from reaching the merits of this appeal. On appeal,

the appellant has the burden to provide a complete record to support a claim of error. Foutch v.

O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984). If no 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.

¶ 12 Here, although respondent contends that five witnesses testified to the “truth” and “facts”

at the hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage, the record does not contain a report of

proceedings or an acceptable substitute such as a bystander’s report or agreed statement of facts

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 323. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(a), (c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Without

a report of proceedings or an acceptable substitute, we are unable to determine what testimony and

-4- No. 1-19-0091

evidence was presented at the hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage. Under these

circumstances, we must presume that the court acted in conformity with the law and ruled properly

after considering the evidence. Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156-57 (2005).

In the absence of a report of proceedings or other record, we have no basis for disturbing the trial

court’s judgment. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 391-92.

¶ 13 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

¶ 14 Affirmed.

-5-