¶ 33 Supreme court rules are not advisory suggestions, but rules to be followed. In re Marriage of Hluska , 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 57, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247 ; In re Estate of Michalak , 404 Ill.App.3d 75, 99, 343 Ill.Dec. 373, 934 N.E.2d 697 (2010). Since plaintiff's appellate brief fails to follow the provisions set forth in Supreme Court Rule 342(a), we may, within our discretion, dismiss his appeal for failure to do so.

¶ 18 As an initial matter, defendants ask us to strike plaintiff's brief and affirm the trial court's judgment due to plaintiff's lack of compliance with applicable supreme court rules governing the contents of briefs on appeal. “Supreme court rules are not advisory suggestions, but rules to be followed.” In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 57, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247 (citing in rE estate oF michalak, 404 ilL.app.3d 75, 99, 343 ilL.dec. 373, 934 N.E.2d 697 (2010) ). In the case at bar, defendants are correct that plaintiff's brief fails to comply with the supreme court rules governing appellate briefs, and we may, within our discretion, dismiss his appeal for that reason.

A court's classification of property will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 76, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247;Henke, 313 Ill.App.3d at 166, 245 Ill.Dec. 780, 728 N.E.2d 1137. A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent or when the court's findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based upon the evidence. In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill.App.3d 173, 181–82, 263 Ill.Dec. 753, 768 N.E.2d 834 (2002).

¶ 43 Illinois Supreme Court rules are not advisory suggestions but mandatory rules to be followed. In re Marriage of Hluska , 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 57, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247. While failure to abide by the rules may result in the brief being stricken, we nevertheless will address the merits of the appeal.

Where the nature of the property is at issue, the presumptions cancel each other out, leaving the trial court free to determine if it was marital or nonmarital property or debt. See In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 88, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247. ¶ 77 Amy points out that the only evidence at trial relevant to the issue was her testimony that Mr. Sines loaned her approximately $170,000 to pay her attorney fees and litigation costs.

There is a reason a circuit court's classification of property will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 76, 961 N.E.2d 1247. The reason for such a deferential standard of review is rooted in the fact that the characterization of assets typically depends on weighing witness credibility, as was the case here.

Our supreme court's rules are not advisory suggestions but mandatory rules that must be followed. In re Marriage of Hluska , 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 57, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247. Because the parties included citations to the relevant record materials in their briefs on appeal, Longanecker's violation of Rule 342(a) has not precluded meaningful review of the Board's decision in this case.

A transfer from a parent to a child is presumed to be a gift. In re Marriage of Marcello , 247 Ill. App. 3d 304, 314, 187 Ill.Dec. 81, 617 N.E.2d 289 (1993) ; see also In re Marriage of Patel , 2013 IL App (1st) 112571, ¶ 76, 373 Ill.Dec. 503, 993 N.E.2d 1062 ; In re Marriage of Hluska , 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 88, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247 ; Frey v. Wubbena , 26 Ill. 2d 62, 70-71, 185 N.E.2d 850 (1962). Courts have also applied such a presumption to a transfer from a parent to a son- or daughter-in-law, especially when the transfer was to both the child and the in-law.

Oruta , 2016 IL App (1st) 152735, ¶ 30, 410 Ill.Dec. 210, 69 N.E.3d 435 (quoting Epstein , 362 Ill. App. 3d at 42, 298 Ill.Dec. 209, 839 N.E.2d 532 ). Supreme court rules are not advisory suggestions, but rules to be followed. In re Marriage of Hluska , 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 57, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247. Where an appellant's brief fails to comply with supreme court rules, this court has the inherent authority to dismiss the appeal.

We remind counsel that our Illinois Supreme Court rules "are not advisory suggestions, but rather, rules to be followed," and it is within this court's discretion to dismiss an appeal for an appellant's failure to follow those rules. In re Marriage of Hluska , 2011 IL App (1st) 092636, ¶ 57, 356 Ill.Dec. 612, 961 N.E.2d 1247. However, because we have the benefit of a cogent appellee's brief and it is possible to locate the relevant documents in the record, we will address the merits of this appeal.