Ammar v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, LLP
93 N.E.3d 660
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Essam A. Ammar filed a verified fourth amended seven‑count complaint arising from contested dissolution proceedings, challenging (among other things) awards to his ex‑spouse and post‑judgment seizures of his retirement accounts.
- Counts at issue on this appeal: Count IV (fraud on the court by Jacqueline), Count V (breach of the marital settlement agreement and alleged statutory protection of exempt funds against Jacqueline), and Count VII (various claims against TD Ameritrade, Inc. and its president, alleging concealment of an injunction and improper seizure/transfer of retirement funds).
- Jacqueline and Ameritrade moved to dismiss under sections 2‑615 and 2‑619: Jacqueline argued failure to state claims and res judicata; Ameritrade argued failure to state claims and that its acts were pursuant to court orders (affirmative matter).
- The circuit court dismissed counts IV, V and VII with prejudice for failure to state causes of action and entered a Rule 304(a) finding that there was no reason to delay enforcement or appeal.
- On appeal, the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for the appellant’s repeated and substantial violations of Illinois Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342 as reflected in his opening brief and appendix (e.g., lack of proper record citations, reliance on records from earlier appeals, failure to provide required appendix contents).
- The appellate court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with procedural briefing rules, noting prior admonitions to Ammar and emphasizing that pro se status does not excuse compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts IV and V against Jacqueline state actionable claims | Ammar contends Jacqueline committed fraud on the court and breached the settlement and statutory protections for exempt funds | Jacqueline argued counts fail to state causes of action and are barred by res judicata | Not reached on merits — appeal dismissed for briefing noncompliance |
| Whether count VII against Ameritrade states actionable claims | Ammar alleges Ameritrade concealed an injunction, misled him and improperly transferred retirement funds | Ameritrade argued count VII fails to state a claim and actions were authorized by court orders (affirmative matter) | Not reached on merits — appeal dismissed for briefing noncompliance |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for appellate‑brief and appendix violations (Rules 341, 342) | Ammar maintained he complied and sought review on the merits | Jacqueline and Ameritrade urged dismissal for multiple and repeated rule violations (improper citations, appendix defects, reliance on records not in the current record) | Court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with Rules 341 and 342, noting repeated prior violations and that pro se status is no excuse |
| Whether sanctions under Rule 375(b) should be imposed | Ammar did not seek sanctions; urged relief on merits | Jacqueline requested Rule 375(b) sanctions against Ammar for frivolous conduct | Court declined to impose Rule 375(b) sanctions despite dismissing the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123 (2005) (explaining dismissal for procedural noncompliance is appropriate where violations prevent review)
- Roe v. Jewish Children’s Bureau of Chicago, 339 Ill. App. 3d 119 (2003) (issue forfeited where appellant cites only general authority and fails to address the specific legal question)