Ammar v. Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck, LLP, 93 N.E.3d 660

Essam A. Ammar (pro se) filed a verified fourth amended seven‑count complaint after dissolution proceedings; this appeal concerns counts IV (fraud on the court), V (breach of marital settlement; improper seizure under 735 ILCS 5/12‑1006), and VII (claims against TD Ameritrade for concealing an injunction and improperly transferring retirement funds).
Defendants in this appeal are Jacqueline I. Ammar and TD Ameritrade, Inc. (and its president J. Thomas Bradley, Jr.).
Jacqueline and Ameritrade moved to dismiss under section 2‑619.1, arguing failure to state claims and that affirmative matters (res judicata and actions taken under court orders) barred the claims.
On October 13, 2016, the circuit court dismissed counts IV, V, and VII with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action and entered a Rule 304(a) certificate.
On appeal, the defendants argued the opening brief failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342; the appellate court found pervasive procedural violations and dismissed the appeal for noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice was erroneous	Ammar argued the court erred in dismissing counts IV, V, and VII on the merits	Jacqueline/TD claimed the complaint failed to state claims and affirmative defenses barred relief; also urged dismissal for appellant's briefing defects	Appeal dismissed for appellant's repeated, substantial violations of Rules 341 and 342; court declined to reach merits
Whether appellant’s brief complied with Rule 341(h)(6) (statement of facts)	Ammar relied on facts from his verified complaint and prior records	Defendants noted lack of proper citations to the record on this appeal and reliance on volumes not in the record	Court found statement of facts deficient and noncompliant
Whether appellant provided adequate legal argument and citations per Rule 341(h)(7)	Ammar raised ten issues but provided few authorities and limited argument	Defendants pointed out unsupported contentions and citation to non‑record materials	Court found many issues forfeited or unsupported; briefing failed rule requirements
Whether the appendix complied with Rule 342	Ammar included a confusing appendix referencing prior 21 volumes and lacked required items (notice of appeal, appendix TOC)	Defendants argued appendix did not permit review	Court held appendix noncompliant and confusing, further justifying dismissal

In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123 (2005) (dismissal of appeal appropriate where rule violations preclude review of issues)
Roe v. Jewish Children’s Bureau of Chicago, 339 Ill. App. 3d 119 (2003) (issues forfeited where only general authority is cited and no controlling authority addresses the specific issue)