Elmesquine v. Bebenek
Key Takeaways
- 1 Appellant's failure to provide a trial transcript compelled affirmance of all judgments below.
- 2 Trial court's counterclaim ruling was confirmed by the record, contradicting appellant's unsupported assertion.
- 3 Relevant for landlord-tenant litigators and appellate practitioners handling pro se appeals with incomplete records.
Summary
In this small claims landlord-tenant dispute, plaintiff Wieslawa Elmesquine sued her landlord Dorota Bebenek for $10,000, alleging Bebenek unlawfully entered her apartment, discarded her personal belongings, and blocked parking spots. Following a bench trial on April 28, 2025, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered judgment for Elmesquine in the amount of $2,200 plus costs, and also ruled in Elmesquine's favor on Bebenek's counterclaim, which alleged reputational harm and emotional distress arising from an allegedly false police misconduct complaint. Bebenek appealed pro se, arguing the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court never ruled on her counterclaim.
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed both judgments. The dispositive issue was Bebenek's failure to include any report of proceedings or acceptable substitute under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) or (d) in the record on appeal. Without a transcript or bystander's report, the court could not review the testimony, evidence, or arguments presented at trial. Exhibits attached to Bebenek's brief but absent from the record were likewise disregarded. The court also rejected Bebenek's claim that no ruling was issued on her counterclaim, noting the Trial Call Order expressly reflected a judgment against her after trial.
This decision reinforces the well-established Foutch principle that an appellant bears the burden of presenting a complete record, and any gap in that record is resolved against the appellant. Attorneys advising clients on appeal — particularly pro se litigants — should ensure trial transcripts or acceptable substitutes are obtained and filed before pursuing appellate review of factual findings.
Key Holdings
1. An appellant who fails to provide a report of proceedings or an acceptable substitute under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) or (d) cannot obtain appellate review of whether a bench trial judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the court will presume the judgment was in conformity with law and supported by sufficient facts. 2. Any doubt arising from an incomplete record on appeal is resolved against the appellant as the party bearing the burden of providing a sufficient record. 3. Exhibits attached to an appellate brief but not included in the record on appeal cannot be considered by the reviewing court. 4. Where the common law record itself — here, the Trial Call Order — affirmatively reflects that the trial court entered judgment on a counterclaim after trial, an appellant's assertion that no ruling was issued is factually contradicted and will not support reversal.