In re Marriage of Bordyn, 2019 IL App (2d) 180017-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bordyn, 2019 IL App (2d) 180017-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Oct. 1, 2019) (Rule 23 order; limited citation).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Dennis Bordyn (pro se). Respondent-Appellee: Judith Bordyn.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred on multiple merits issues (striking notice of intent to claim dissipation, permitting correction of a scrivener’s error, finding dissipation, equitable division of marital property, and denial of interim attorney fees).
- Whether the record on appeal was sufficient (transcripts from a 12-day trial were not included).
- Whether sanctions under Supreme Court Rule 375 were warranted against respondent/counsel for purportedly improper transcript designations and a frivolous cross-appeal.

3. Holding/outcome
- Summary affirmance of the trial court’s dissolution judgment due to an inadequate appellate record. The court granted respondent’s motion for summary affirmance and denied appellant’s motion for sanctions.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court declined to reach the merits because the record lacked the trial transcripts from the 12-day trial that were necessary to review fact-intensive claims (property valuation, dissipation, credibility and division determinations).
- The trial court had ordered appellant (as the appealing party) to include the entirety of the trial transcripts in the report of proceedings under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323 because the issues on appeal required the full trial record. Appellant failed to supply those transcripts; the submitted record contained duplicative and post-dissolution hearings only.
- Relying on the Foutch presumption and related authority, the appellate court treated any gaps against the appellant and assumed the trial court’s rulings had a sufficient factual basis. Given the inadequate record, summary affirmance (rather than merit disposition) was appropriate.
- The court denied Rule 375 sanctions against respondent/counsel, implicitly recognizing the procedural complexity and prior rulings allocating transcript responsibilities between the parties.

5. Practice implications
- Appellants (including pro se litigants) bear the burden to provide a complete record on appeal—especially where appellate review depends on trial testimony (property division, dissipation, credibility). Failure to do so risks summary affirmance under Foutch.
- Use Rule 323 designations and transcript orders early and carefully; when issues implicate extensive trial evidence, order full trial transcripts rather than piecemeal selections.
- Procedural posture (finality, timeliness, prior dismissals or cross-appeal withdrawals) affects transcript obligations and appellate rights; monitor interlocutory matters and jurisdiction closely.
- Sanctions require clear proof of bad faith; transcript-designation disputes alone may not justify Rule 375 relief.