Opinion
5-23-0198
05-24-2024
EDWARD V. CALLICO and VINCENT G. CALLICO, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. MELVIN N. CALLICO and NICHOLAS E. CALLICO, Defendants-Appellees, and LEA ANN CALLICO, DEJIAH M. CALLICO, JOHN E. CALLICO, and HALIE A. CALLICO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARGARET A. CALLICO, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clinton County. No. 20-L-30 Honorable Stanley M. Brandmeyer, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Moore and Boie concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
BARBERIS JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: Plaintiffs' failure to comply with requirements set forth in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 requires dismissal of the appeal.
¶ 2 The instant appeal arises from proceedings related to the estate of Vincent N. Callico between plaintiffs, Edward V. Callico and Vincent G. Callico (plaintiffs), and defendants, Melvin N. Callico, Nicholas E. Callico, and Margaret A. Callico. Following lengthy litigation, the circuit court entered an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing the court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants when discovery was incomplete and genuine issues of material fact existed, including the fact that defendants' attorney failed to disclose to the court that Melvin N. Callico, a named defendant, died in January 2022. For reasons that follow, we dismiss plaintiffs' appeal.
Lea Ann Callico is Edward's wife. Dejiah M., John E., and Halie A. are the children of Edward and Lea Ann.
¶ 3 I. Background
¶ 4 Given the litigation history between the parties and plaintiffs' lack of clarity of the pertinent facts of the history of the case, we limit our recitation to those facts relevant to our disposition of this appeal.
¶ 5 On October 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a six-count pro se complaint against defendants alleging conversion, fraudulent deceit, fraudulent and intentional misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and tortious interference concerning the estate of Vincent N. Callico, who died on April 16, 2019.
¶ 6 Over the next year, the parties engaged in multiple status hearings, exchanged discovery, filed countless motions, and continued the case multiple times. On June 25, 2021, defendants filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018), arguing that plaintiffs failed to conduct reasonable inquiry and filed pleadings not well grounded in law or fact.
¶ 7 On November 2, 2021, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing on September 6, 2022, the circuit court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on September 22, 2022. In ruling in favor of defendants, the court stated that "[m]uch of th[e] [plaintiffs'] Complaint contained references to jurisdictional authority outside the State of Illinois, or, in some respects, contained allegations which were generally unintelligible as relevant to any sustainable cause of action in Illinois. That Complaint has never been amended."
¶ 8 On October 20, 2022, plaintiffs filed a timely motion to reconsider, which the circuit court denied on February 23, 2023. The court provided plaintiffs leave to file a response to defendants' motion for Rule 137 sanctions within 30 days. Five days later, on February 28, 2023, the court denied defendants' motion for Rule 137 sanctions.
¶ 9 On March 30, 2023, plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal from the circuit court's September 22, 2022, February 23, 2023, and February 28, 2023, orders.
¶ 10 On August 7, 2023, Margaret A. Callico, defendant-appellee/cross-appellant, filed a motion to strike plaintiffs' opening brief and for other sanctions pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(a) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), arguing that plaintiffs failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Margaret also filed a separate motion for sanctions, arguing that plaintiffs filed a frivolous appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). We take the motions with the case.
¶ 11 II. Analysis
¶ 12 Initially, we address Margaret's motions to strike plaintiffs' opening brief and for sanctions pursuant to Rule 375(b). In Margaret's motion to strike, she argues that plaintiffs' statement of facts violates Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Rule 341(h)(6) provides that all briefs should provide the reviewing court with "the facts necessary to an understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without argument or comment, and with appropriate reference to the pages of the record on appeal." Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Margaret argues that plaintiffs make "demonstrably false and irrelevant statements with no reference to the record" and misstate the procedural history of the case.
¶ 13 Additionally, Margaret argues that portions of plaintiffs' argument section should be stricken, where plaintiffs fail to comply with Illinois Supreme Court 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Rule 341(h)(7) provides that the appellant's opening brief must set forth an argument "which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and reasons therefor." Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Margaret essentially contends that plaintiffs make conclusory statements without reasoning and citation to authorities and reference to the record.
¶ 14 The purpose of the appellate rules of procedure is to require the parties before the reviewing court to present clear and orderly arguments so that the court can properly ascertain and dispose of the issues presented. Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 7. The procedural rules governing the content and format of appellate briefs are not suggestions, they are mandatory. Rosestone Investments, LLC v. Garner, 2013 IL App (1st) 123422, ¶ 18. "[T]he striking of an appellate brief, in whole or in part, is a harsh sanction and is appropriate only when the alleged violations of procedural rules interfere with or preclude review." Moomaw v. Mentor H/S, Inc., 313 Ill.App.3d 1031, 1035 (2000). This court has discretion to strike an appellant's brief and dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the applicable rules of appellate procedure. McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12.
¶ 15 In the case at bar, plaintiffs' statement of facts fails to provide this court with an understanding of the case. The statement of facts is hard to follow, extremely undeveloped to provide an adequate understanding, and also fails in several instances to provide specific references to the record. Moreover, plaintiffs' argument section fails to provide a coherent legal argument in support of the issues raised on appeal. Under the first issue, plaintiffs state that undisputed facts exist and then proceed to list 19 bullet points without reference to the record or reasoning as to why this information is important to their argument. Under the second issue, plaintiffs fail to (1) cite to legal authority throughout, (2) elaborate on arguments when citing to case law, and (3) consistently cite to the record. Overall, plaintiffs' argument section fails to provide coherent legal argument and reasoning for this court to review. See Sakellariadis v. Campbell, 391 Ill.App.3d 795, 804 (2009) (failure to elaborate on an argument, cite persuasive authority, or present a well-reasoned argument violates Rule 341(h)(7) and results in waiver of that argument). As such, plaintiffs' statement of facts and argument sections hinder our review. We grant Margaret's motion to strike and dismiss the appeal. We, however, deny Margaret's motion for sanctions based on plaintiffs' violations of the briefing requirements. See Garlick v. Bloomingdale Township, 2018 IL App (2d) 171013, ¶ 61 (granting motion to strike but declining to impose sanctions under Rule 375(a), where the violations were not so egregious as to warrant sanctions).
¶ 16 We also decline to impose sanctions under Rule 375(b), which allows this court to impose an appropriate sanction upon any party or the party's attorney if this court determines that the appeal is frivolous or not taken in good faith. Ill. S.Ct. R. 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). An appeal is deemed frivolous "where it is not reasonably well grounded in fact and not warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." Id. "Sanctions may be awarded against pro se litigants under sufficiently egregious circumstances." Garlick, 2018 IL App (2d) 171013, ¶ 59. "Imposition of sanctions under Rule 375(b) is left strictly to our discretion." Id. Given the deficiencies in plaintiffs' brief, we are unable to determine whether the appeal is frivolous. We find the dismissal of the appeal an appropriate sanction under these circumstances and decline to impose additional sanctions under Rule 375(b).
¶ 17 The dismissal of an appeal is such a severe sanction that we hesitate to impose it. However, plaintiffs' brief contains multiple violations of the briefing requirements set forth in the rules, which we find precludes our ability to review the issues raised on appeal. In view of these inadequacies, we exercise our discretion and dismiss plaintiffs' appeal.
¶ 18 III. Conclusion
¶ 19 For these reasons, we dismiss plaintiffs' appeal.
¶ 20 Appeal dismissed.