Background
Peter Siakpere filed a pro se eviction complaint on November 7, 2024, against Carolyn Alexander, claiming he owned property located on Dover Drive in Des Plaines and that Alexander was trespassing. Siakpere demanded possession of the property, court costs, and attorney fees. The trial court struck the matter from the call on December 20, 2024, without Siakpere’s knowledge.
In April 2025, Siakpere filed a motion asserting that an April 2, 2019 quit claim deed purportedly transferring the property to Alexander had been forged. He supported this claim with evidence that the notary who allegedly witnessed his signature on the deed had been sentenced to federal prison for embezzlement. On May 30, 2025, the trial court entered an order finding that Siakpere did not own the Dover property and dismissed the case with prejudice. Both parties appeared via Zoom for the hearing.
Siakpere appealed pro se, arguing that the trial court violated due process by failing to conduct a fair hearing and abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal order, but on purely procedural grounds. The court held that Siakpere failed to provide a sufficiently complete record on appeal for review, which prevented the appellate court from reaching the merits of his claims.
Specifically, the record on appeal lacked any report of proceedings, transcript, or substitute documentation detailing what testimony, evidence, and arguments were presented at the May 30, 2025 hearing. Additionally, the copy of the allegedly forged quit claim deed included in the record was largely illegible. Under Illinois appellate procedure rules, the appellant bears the burden of presenting a complete record, and any doubts arising from an incomplete record are resolved against the appellant.
The appellate court noted that without a proper report of proceedings, it must presume the trial court acted in compliance with the law and had a sufficient factual basis for its findings. Therefore, the court could not review whether the trial court’s decision was correct on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants must provide a sufficiently complete record on appeal, including a transcript of proceedings, bystanders report, or agreed statement of facts under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323.
- When an appellate record is incomplete, the appellate court cannot review the merits and must affirm the trial court’s judgment.
- Ambiguities and incompleteness in the appellate record are resolved against the appellant, not in their favor.
- Pro se litigants, even when raising substantive claims such as deed forgery, must still comply with appellate procedure requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores a critical procedural requirement in appellate practice: appellants cannot rely solely on written trial orders to convey what occurred in court. Creating and preserving a complete record—including transcripts or formal reports of proceedings—is essential to appellate review. Without such documentation, appellate courts cannot assess whether trial courts made factual or legal errors, regardless of how strong the underlying legal arguments may appear.
For litigants, particularly pro se parties, the takeaway is sobering: substantive claims, even ones involving alleged forgery and crimes by court officers, cannot reach appellate review if the record is incomplete. Parties must take affirmative steps during trial to ensure a proper record is created and must comply with procedural rules when appealing.