Husband filed five complaints in a row against wife. The court kept dismissing what he filed. He was given a chance to file an amended complaint. He would file an amended complaint. He was prose throughout the case.
She had gotten an award of attorney fees against him. She was able to seize money from his retirement account to satisfy judgments against him.
Husband argued that Ameritrade violated its duty to protect his retirement account. He argued that Ameritrade had concealed the injunction on his accounts from him.
The Trial Court dismissed with prejudice his pro se fourth amended complaint. He had sued his now ex-wife and Ameritrade. He had also sued the attorneys and law firms that had represented him or his ex-wife during the divorce. This has gone back and forth for some time. Husband appealed for the third time.
The Appellate Court used its discretion. It dismissed his 3rd pro se appeal with prejudice.
The court noted that there is a purpose for the rules to be followed. The parties are required to present clear and orderly arguments. The court has to figure out and dispose of the issues presented. It has to understand the necessary facts.
Husband’s opening brief contained multiple violations of Supreme Court Rules. Just like his two prior appeals.
Violations include citations to volumes of record that are not part of the record on appeal. The appendix lacked a table of contents. There was no notice of appeal. The facts that he stated did not link to the file from the record. The record is everything that went on before.
The Appellate Court noted that a dismissal of an appeal is a severe sanction. It hesitated to impose it. But, the husband’s multiple violations of the rules prevented the court from reviewing the issues he raised on appeal. Also, this was his third appeal. He continued to violate the same rules of appellate procedure.
Ammar v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, LLP, 2017 IL App (1st) 162931, Friday, December 22, 2017.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!