Glenwood Manor 2 Condominium v. Bass , 2022 IL App (1st) 210675-U ( 2022 )

2022 IL App (1st) 210675-UFIFTH DIVISION
Order filed: March 4, 2022
No. 1-21-0675
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
______________________________________________________________________________
GLENWOOD MANOR #2 CONDOMINIUM, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County
)
v. ) No. 2016 M6 1037
)
)
CHERYL B. BASS and CURTIS L. BASS, JR, ) Honorable
) Carrie E. Hamilton,
Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Delort and Justice Cunningham concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We dismissed this appeal where the appellants’ brief failed to comply with the
requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) and the failure
prevents review of the appellants’ claims of error.
¶2 The defendants, Cheryl B. Bass and Curtis L. Bass, Jr, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal
from various orders of the circuit court which, inter alia: granted the plaintiff, Glenwood Manor
#2 Condominium (Glenwood) possession of Unit 514, 700 Bruce Lane, Glenwood, Illinois (the
No. 1-21-0675
Unit); entered a judgment against them in favor or Glenwood in the sum of $4,189.34; and denied
their motion to vacate the judgment for possession. For the reasons which follow, we dismiss this
appeal.
¶3 From the record it appears that Glenwood filed the instant action against the defendants,
seeking possession of the Unit by reason of the defendants’ failure to pay common expenses and
also sought a judgment against the defendants for unpaid assessments, attorney fees, and costs.
The circuit court entered a judgment for possession of the Unit in favor of Glenwood and a
$4,189.34 judgment against the defendants. The defendants filed a motion to vacate the judgment
of possession which the circuit court denied on May 17, 2021. On June 11, 2021, the defendants
filed their pro se notice of appeal, and on September 14, 2021, they filed their pro se brief.
¶4 Initially, we note the appellee, Glenwood, did not file a brief, and we ordered this case
taken on the defendants’ brief alone. As a reviewing court, we will not act as an advocate for an
appellee who fails to file a brief or search the record for the purpose of sustaining the circuit court’s
judgment. In re D.S., 2021 IL App (1st) 192257, ¶ 19 (citing First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v.
Talandis Construction Corp., 62 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976)). However, we will not automatically
reverse a judgment in the absence of an appellee’s brief. Id. (citing First Capitol Mortgage Corp.¸
62 Ill. 2d at 131-32).
¶5 Upon review, we find that the defendants’ brief fails to conform with Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Rule 341 governs the form and content of appellate briefs.
McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12. Compliance with Rule 341 is mandatory, and
the fact that a party appears pro se does not relieve that party from complying as nearly as possible
with the rules for practice before this court. Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8; see also
Wing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2016 IL App (1st) 153517, ¶ 7 (“An appellant’s pro se status
-2-
No. 1-21-0675
does not alleviate the duty to comply with our supreme court's rules governing appellate
procedure.”).
¶6 Here, we find that the defendants have failed to comply with Rule 341(h) in almost every
respect. Their brief has no table of contents or “points and authorities” in violation of Rule
341(h)(1). The brief does not contain an introductory paragraph setting forth the nature of the
action and of the judgment appealed from as required by Rule 341(h)(2). There is no statement of
the issue presented for review in violation of Rule 341(h)(3). The defendants have also neglected
to include a statement of jurisdiction in compliance with Rule 341(h)(4)(ii). The defendants’ brief
does make numerous factual assertions, but we cannot consider this as the statement of facts
required by Rule 341(h)(6), because it is impossible to determine, in light of the other deficiencies,
whether these factual assertions constitute “the facts necessary for an understanding of the case.”
Moreover, we do not find that these facts are presented “accurately and fairly without argument or
comment,” and most importantly, there are no citations to the pages of the record on appeal. See
Rule 341(h)(6). The brief contains no separate argument section. However, to the extent that
argument is improperly conflated with the defendants’ statement of facts, we cannot find
compliance with Rule 341(h)(7), because the defendants’ arguments are devoid of citation to
authority and references to the pages of the record. Finally, we note that the brief does not contain
an appendix as required by Rule 342. See Rule 341(h)(9).
¶7 When a brief fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 341, it is within our discretion
to strike the brief and dismiss the appeal. McCann, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12 (citing
Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 77). This court is “ ‘not a repository into which
an appellant may foist the burden of argument and research.’ ” Cimino v. Sublette, 2015 IL App
(1st) 133373, ¶ 3 (quoting Velocity Investments, LLC v. Alston, 397 Ill. App. 3d 296, 297 (2010)).
-3-
No. 1-21-0675
Here, we find that the deficiencies in the defendants’ brief as appellants are such that we cannot
properly consider the merits of their appeal. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to strike the
defendants’ brief and dismiss this appeal.
¶8 Appeal dismissed.
-4-