In re Marriage of Scott

Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 12/10/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary: <div class="case-metadata"> <h3>CASE METADATA</h3> - **Case:** *In re Marriage of Scott*, 2025 IL App (4th) 250776-U - **Court and Division:** Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District - **Filing Dat...

Full Case Summary

CASE METADATA

- **Case:** *In re Marriage of Scott*, 2025 IL App (4th) 250776-U - **Court and Division:** Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District - **Filing Date:** December 9, 2025 - **Trial Court:** Circuit Court of Rock Island County, No. 19D170 - **Trial Judge:** Honorable John L. McGehee - **Justices:** Justice Doherty delivered the judgment; Justices Knecht and Grischow concurred - **Precedential Status:** **Rule 23 Order – NOT PRECEDENT** except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1) - **Standard of Review:** Discretionary review of Rule 341 compliance (procedural dismissal) - **Procedural Posture:** Appeal by pro se respondent from July 16, 2025 order modifying allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time; trial held April–June 2025; notice of appeal filed July 21, 2025; no transcript or exhibits included in appellate record

HOLDING

The appellate court **struck respondent's brief and dismissed the appeal** for failure to comply with **Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)** (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). **Binding Rules Affirmed:** 1. Appellate courts have **discretion to strike an appellant's brief and dismiss an appeal** when the brief fails to comply with Rule 341 requirements. *Litwin v. County of La Salle*, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 11. 2. **Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys** and must comply with procedural rules. *Holzrichter v. Yorath*, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78. 3. Procedural rules governing appellate briefs are **"mandatory and not suggestions."** *Litwin*, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 3. 4. Contentions **inadequately presented**—including failure to provide coherent argument or cite pertinent authority—**do not merit consideration**. *Holmstrom v. Kunis*, 221 Ill. App. 3d 317, 325 (1991). **Critical Finding:** Dismissal was required based on briefing deficiencies **"separate and apart from"** the failure to include a report of proceedings. **Confidence Score:** 0.95 (clear procedural dismissal with explicit rule citations)

DICTA & GUIDANCE

- The court characterized dismissal as a **"harsh but appropriate sanction"** when violations hinder appellate review—suggesting discretion may be exercised differently for minor violations that do not impede review. - The court acknowledged respondent's arguments regarding trial court errors and fee waiver issues but **declined to reach the merits** due to procedural deficiencies. - **Fee Waiver Guidance:** The trial court distinguished between general assistance (triggering complete waiver under **735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(2)(i)**) and DCFS childcare reimbursement (which does not). A 25% partial waiver was granted based on $48,000 annual income. - **Jurisdictional Uncertainty:** The court flagged but did not resolve whether post-perfection trial court rulings require a separate appeal. - **Judicial Notice:** Courts may take judicial notice of online court docket entries. *Asher Farm Ltd. Partnership v. Wolsfeld*, 2022 IL App (2d) 220072, ¶ 31. **Confidence Score:** 0.85 (fee waiver discussion is dicta; jurisdictional issue expressly unresolved)

REASONING

**Governing Rules:** - **Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(1)-(4):** Requires table of contents, introductory paragraph, statement of issues, jurisdictional statement - **Rule 341(h)(6):** Statement of facts with record citations, stated fairly without argument - **Rule 341(h)(7):** Argument section with contentions, reasons, citation of authorities, and record page references **Specific Deficiencies Found:** - Failed to meaningfully cite or apply legal authorities - Merely listed statutory sections and rules without explaining relevance - Failed to show how authorities applied to facts - Provided no cogent legal analysis - Arguments contradicted by cited authority **Controlling Precedents:** - *Litwin v. County of La Salle*, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410 — discretion to dismiss for Rule 341 violations - *Holzrichter v. Yorath*, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78 — pro se litigants held to attorney standards - *Zadrozny v. City Colleges of Chicago*, 220 Ill. App. 3d 290, 292 (1991) — courts not a "repository" for dumping research burdens - *In re Marriage of Kimbrough*, 406 Ill. App. 3d 867, 875 (2010) — court not obligated to search record for reversible error - *Webb v. Angell*, 155 Ill. App. 3d 848, 854 (1987) — arguments without record citations will not be considered - *Dillard v. Kean*, 183 Ill. App. 3d 28, 31 (1989) — court will not do appellant's "homework" **Statutory References:** - **735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(2)(i)** — fee waiver eligibility - **750 ILCS 5/5-105(b)(2)(iii)** — child support percentages (referenced in passing)

PRACTICE IMPACT

**For Practitioners Opposing Pro Se Appeals:** - File motions to strike/dismiss citing specific Rule 341(h) deficiencies early - Document each violation with particularity - Cite *Litwin* and *Holzrichter* for enforcement against pro se parties **For Appellate Practitioners Generally:** - **Strict Rule 341 compliance is essential**—violations can be dispositive - Every factual assertion requires specific record page citations - Do not merely list authorities; explain relevance and application to facts - Verify cited authority actually supports your position **Pre-Filing Checklist:** - [ ] Table of contents - [ ] Introductory paragraph with nature of action/judgment - [ ] Statement of issues presented - [ ] Jurisdictional statement with authority - [ ] Statement of facts with record citations (no argument) - [ ] Argument with authorities and record citations for each contention **Fee Waiver Practice:** - Attach documentation of enumerated public benefits with initial application - DCFS childcare subsidies do not trigger automatic complete waiver - Partial waivers available based on income relative to poverty guidelines - Ensure fee waiver rulings are included in appellate record **Suggested Motion Language:** > "Appellant's brief fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) in multiple respects. As recognized in *Litwin v. County of La Salle*, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 11, dismissal is appropriate when procedural violations hinder appellate review. Appellant's pro se status does not excuse compliance. *Holzrichter v. Yorath*, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78." **Caution:** This is a **Rule 23 order** with limited precedential value—cite as persuasive authority only, with appropriate disclaimer.

Download PDF Opinion Ask AI About This Case

Ask AI About This Case

Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Scott? Ask our AI assistant below.