Background
In September 2019, Kecia Porter and Keyana Porter were injured when their vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by Ronnie Thompson. The Porters filed suit in August 2021 through counsel, but switched to pro se representation in August 2023. The case proceeded to settlement on January 15, 2025, with the trial court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
The settlement dispute centered on payment mechanics. Thompson’s insurer, State Farm, issued settlement checks listing Medicare and Medicaid as payees because these programs had paid portions of the Porters’ medical expenses from 2019 to 2021. The Porters refused to accept checks with these payees and demanded checks issued solely to themselves, contending the settlement agreement contained no reference to Medicare or Medicaid and that they, not Thompson, should handle any liens held by these programs. In February 2025, the Porters filed a motion to enforce the settlement, claiming Thompson had not disbursed funds timely.
The trial court held hearings on the Porters’ motion on June 25, 2025, and scheduled a status hearing for July 31, 2025. On July 31, the court denied the motion to enforce the settlement. The Porters appealed, but the appellate record contained no transcripts from either hearing, no bystander’s reports, and no written explanation of the trial court’s reasoning.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to enforce settlement. The court applied the longstanding principle that an appellant bears the burden to present a sufficiently complete record on appeal. When a record is incomplete—particularly when it lacks hearing transcripts and contains no indication of the trial court’s basis for its ruling—Illinois law presumes the trial court’s order was correct and in conformity with law.
The court acknowledged that the record suggested Medicare and/or Medicaid may have paid some bills and may have had an interest in the settlement funds, raising legitimate questions under state and federal law about their statutory recovery rights. However, the court found that without transcripts of the June 25 and July 31 hearings, without knowing what evidence or arguments were presented, and without any written explanation of the court’s decision, it could not evaluate the Porters’ arguments or determine whether the trial court erred. The trial court’s statement that it was “fully advised in the premises” further strengthened the presumption of correctness.
The court also noted that the Porters attempted to rely on facts outside the appellate record, including post-judgment developments in September 2025 (two months after the trial court’s order) showing Medicare’s balance as zero. Such facts could not be considered on appeal, as they were neither part of the record before the trial court nor part of the trial court’s decision.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must present a sufficiently complete appellate record, including hearing transcripts, to preserve issues for review; failure to do so results in affirmance under a strong presumption of correctness.
- Pro se litigants bear the same procedural burden as represented parties to create an adequate record, though they receive some deference in other contexts.
- Settlement disputes involving third-party payors like Medicare and Medicaid can become procedurally complex; parties should ensure all relevant documentation is preserved in the trial court record.
- Facts not contained in the appellate record—including events occurring after the trial court’s decision—cannot support arguments on appeal, even if they might support the appellant’s position.
Why It Matters
This case underscores the strict procedural gatekeeping function of appellate records in Illinois. A trial court’s substantive ruling—even one that may be questionable—becomes effectively unreviewable if the appellant fails to create an adequate record. For pro se litigants, who often lack legal training, this creates a significant trap: their inability to afford counsel and transcripts may result in waiver of otherwise meritorious claims. Here, the Porters may have had valid arguments that a settlement agreement should not be amended to add payees not contemplated at signing, but the incomplete record prevented the appellate court from reaching those questions.
The opinion also highlights the intersection of settlement law and third-party payor rights. When Medicare or Medicaid have paid medical expenses, their statutory reimbursement rights can complicate settlement distribution, but these issues must be clearly litigated and documented at trial. Settlement negotiators should be explicit about how liens and payor interests will be handled, and trial courts should create clear records explaining their reasoning when resolving payment disputes. Without such documentation, enforcement of the resulting orders becomes difficult for either party.