Opinion
4-22-0767
12-27-2023
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, for and on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADOLFO TORRES SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant, and THE CITY OF ROCKFORD, Defendant.
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County No. 20ED3 Honorable Lisa R. Fabiano, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice DeArmond and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
LANNERD, JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: Defendant's appeal was dismissed because of his failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
¶ 2 On May 7, 2020, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), for and on behalf of the people of the State of Illinois, filed a complaint for condemnation of the property at issue in this appeal (parcel No. 2061354) located at 2004 West State Street in Rockford, Illinois. IDOT named Adolfo Torres Sanchez, the property's owner, and the City of Rockford (City), a lienholder, as defendants in the case. IDOT alleged it was reconstructing a state highway running through Winnebago County, Illinois, and acquiring Torres Sanchez's property was necessary for the project. Citing section 4-501 of the Illinois Highway Code (605 ILCS 5/4-501 (West 2020)), IDOT indicated it could acquire the property in accordance with the Illinois Eminent Domain Act (735 ILCS 30/1-1-1 et seq. (West 2020)). On September 16, 2020, the trial court entered an order vesting title of the property to IDOT and setting preliminary just compensation for the property at $7000. On July 27, 2022, the court conducted a jury trial to determine the fair market value of the property. The jury returned a verdict finding just compensation for the taking of the property was $7000. That same day, the court entered judgment on the jury's verdict. Torres Sanchez filed this appeal. Because of the deficiencies of Torres Sanchez's appellant's brief, we strike his brief and dismiss his appeal.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On May 7, 2020, IDOT filed its condemnation complaint alleging it had made a good faith offer to purchase Torres Sanchez's parcel of property but had been unable to reach an agreement. On May 18, 2020, IDOT filed a motion for immediate vesting of title to the property pursuant to the quick take provisions found in article 20 of the Eminent Domain Act (id. § 20-5-5 et seq.).
¶ 5 On June 29, 2020, Torres Sanchez filed a broad response to IDOT's complaint, which contained sections purporting to be a general denial, a verified denial, a "special exception," a motion to dismiss, and affirmative defenses. According to Torres Sanchez, IDOT's claim arose from a crime committed by the City against him and his property and IDOT is "a voluntary and necessary heir to the alleged crime." Torres Sanchez stated IDOT's purchase offer was not made in good faith because IDOT was trying to acquire the property at no cost, despite IDOT receiving information from him about the City's alleged criminal acts, which, according to him, distorted the property's value.
¶ 6 The City's alleged crime was the demolition in 2012 of a building that had stood on the property. The building had been damaged by a fire in July 2012 and the City demolished it a week later, allegedly without any communication with Torres Sanchez or authorization from the fire department. Torres Sanchez claimed the demolition was not justified because the building was not dangerous. According to Torres Sanchez, the City was now trying to seize his property without payment through fraudulent means, including placing a lien on the property for the cost of demolition. Torres Sanchez stated the City had "actively and continuously attempted to seize [his] property at zero cost by all allegedly fraudulent means, using sanctions and claiming allegedly unlawful amounts." Torres Sanchez noted the City had a lien against the property for $6935.75, which represented the City's cost of demolishing the building on the property. Torres Sanchez indicated he was deciding whether to sue the City for its actions.
¶ 7 On August 4, 2020, IDOT responded, noting most of Torres Sanchez's requested remedies related to his ongoing legal disputes with the City. According to IDOT, Torres Sanchez's allegations IDOT was not properly exercising its eminent domain authority should be construed as a traverse and addressed prior to the trial court determining preliminary just compensation and an order vesting title of the property. IDOT disputed Torres Sanchez's allegations it was not properly exercising its right of eminent domain. In the interest of judicial economy, IDOT asked the court to allow it to establish the elements justifying the quick take of the property and preliminary just compensation. The court scheduled a hearing for September 16, 2020.
¶ 8 While the record does not include a transcript from the September hearing, in a written order dated September 16, 2020, the trial court denied Torres Sanchez's June 29, 2020, response to IDOT's complaint to the extent the response constituted a traverse and a motion to dismiss. The court also found IDOT had the authority to exercise the right of eminent domain, the property at issue was subject to IDOT's exercise of its right, and IDOT was not improperly exercising its right in this case. Further, the court found the existence of a reasonable necessity for taking the property in the manner requested by IDOT. The court determined $7000 would constitute preliminary just compensation for the property and indicated IDOT would be vested with fee simple title to the property after depositing $7000 with the Winnebago County Treasurer, which IDOT later deposited on October 28, 2020. On December 9, 2020, the court entered an order vesting title of the property to IDOT pursuant to section 20-5-15 of the Eminent Domain Act (id. § 20-5-15).
¶ 9 In a pleading Torres Sanchez filed with the trial court on June 7, 2021, he alleged IDOT and the City were guilty of fraud and the City both violated his fundamental rights and engaged in harassment and racism toward him. Nearly a month later, in a July 6, 2021, filing with the court, Torres Sanchez again focused on the allegedly criminal demolition of the fire-damaged building and also claimed certain other reprisals by the City against him after the demolition. According to Torres Sanchez, he was the victim of crimes committed by IDOT and the City, including criminally fraudulent attempts to deprive him of his property.
¶ 10 On July 23, 2021, IDOT moved to strike Torres Sanchez's June 7, 2021, and July 6, 2021, court filings, noting that he did not exercise his right to file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's September 16, 2020, order pursuant to section 20-5-10 of the Eminent Domain Act (id. § 20-5-10). As a result, IDOT argued the only relevant issue remaining was determining the fair market value of the property as of the date IDOT filed the condemnation action. Therefore, Torres Sanchez's complaints regarding the demolition of the building that had been on the property in 2012 or his efforts to establish what the property would have been worth if the building were still standing were not relevant.
¶ 11 On September 2, 2021, the trial court agreed with IDOT and found the only remaining issue was determining final just compensation for the property. As a result, the court granted IDOT's motion to strike Torres Sanchez's pleadings filed June 7, 2021, and July 6, 2021, and IDOT's oral motion to strike his pleadings filed August 16, 2021, and August 24, 2021. The court also denied any relief Torres Sanchez sought in those pleadings. On its own motion, the court barred Torres Sanchez from filing any further pleadings without prior leave of the court and indicated his failure to comply with the court's order could result in a contempt finding and sanctions.
¶ 12 On September 27, 2021, Torres Sanchez filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's entire September 2, 2021, order. On December 9, 2021, the court denied that motion. On April 8, 2022, Torres Sanchez filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge for cause and as a matter of right. He also asked for a change of venue.
¶ 13 On June 29, 2022, IDOT filed a series of motions in limine asking the trial court to bar Torres Sanchez from presenting certain information during the jury trial, including the following: (1) IDOT's discovery objections; (2) IDOT's motions in limine; (3) negotiations between the parties; (4) offers for other property and prices paid by IDOT for other property purchased for the improvement project; (5) the presence of a building on the property prior to July 12, 2012, and the City's demolition of the building; (6) derogatory, inflammatory, and prejudicial accusations about IDOT and the City; (7) valuation testimony from Victoria Torres Sanchez and Maria Victoria Arroyo del Rey; and (8) references to Torres Sanchez as counter-plaintiff or IDOT as counter-defendant.
¶ 14 On July 14, 2022, the trial court held a final pretrial conference. The court addressed Torres Sanchez's motion to recuse the trial judge for cause and as a matter of right. As for the motion to recuse for cause, the court indicated it was facially deficient because it was not supported by an affidavit. The motion also failed to raise a threshold issue indicating the trial judge was biased against Torres Sanchez or present any other valid reason for recusal. As for the motion to recuse as a matter of right, the court found it untimely. The court also denied Torres Sanchez's motion for a change of venue because he presented no basis for an argument he could not receive a fair trial in Winnebago County. Finally, the court also granted all of IDOT's motions in limine.
¶ 15 The jury trial in this matter commenced on July 27, 2022. During Torres Sanchez's opening statement, he indicated he had encountered corruption in dealing with IDOT. The trial court sustained IDOT's objection and directed Torres Sanchez to confine his remarks to relevant evidence. Torres Sanchez then told the jury the attorney general had been "trying to change the meaning of things" and also indicated the road widening project began in 2009. IDOT's objections to both of these remarks were sustained. Thereafter, Torres Sanchez accused the court of violating his rights. In response, the court instructed Torres Sanchez to move on to the relevant period of time in the case. The court warned Torres Sanchez it would stop his opening statement if he continued to violate the court's orders.
¶ 16 After receiving this warning, Torres Sanchez immediately told the jury the City destroyed a building on the property in 2012. IDOT objected again and asked the trial court to strike Torres Sanchez's comments. The court did so and again admonished Torres Sanchez to confine his statements to the current controversy. Torres Sanchez complained he was not being allowed to speak and the court issued another warning. However, Torres Sanchez then told the jury the building that had been demolished was big and valuable. The court stopped the opening statement but allowed Torres Sanchez one minute to wrap up his opening statement. In response, Torres Sanchez told the jury he had filed a motion to recuse the trial judge. IDOT again objected, and the court then stopped the opening statement.
¶ 17 IDOT called two witnesses. Matthew Dobie testified he was the District 2 condemnation engineer for IDOT and a licensed professional engineer in Illinois. Dobie indicated the project at issue in Rockford included a complete roadway reconstruction and was currently underway. IDOT had acquired 69 parcels of land for the project-some through negotiations with property owners and others through eminent domain. In this case, Dobie testified IDOT acquired the property at issue, which was 59 feet by 118 feet, through the quick take eminent domain process and paid preliminary just compensation of $7000 for the property.
¶ 18 On cross-examination, Torres Sanchez asked Dobie the amount of money IDOT offered Torres Sanchez for the property before the case was filed. The trial court sustained IDOT's objection to the question. During a sidebar, Torres Sanchez complained to the court that it was not letting him speak and was violating his rights. In response, the court told Torres Sanchez it already had ruled on many pretrial motions in limine with regard to evidence he could not present at trial. Once again, the court told Torres Sanchez the only issue at the trial was the fair market value of the property on May 7, 2020, which was the date IDOT filed the condemnation proceeding. The court then warned Torres Sanchez it would stop his cross-examination of the witness and eventually eject him from the courtroom if he continued to violate the court's rulings. Moreover, the court admonished Torres Sanchez that he was not allowed to ask the witness questions about the building that had been located on the property prior to 2012 or any questions beyond the scope of IDOT's direct examination of the witness. Shortly thereafter, Torres Sanchez asked Dobie about the demolished building. At that point, the court stopped the cross-examination. Torres Sanchez continued to argue with the court, arguing what was occurring was "a crime."
¶ 19 After Dobie was excused as a witness, Torres Sanchez continued to complain he was not being allowed to ask questions or "do anything." The trial court told Torres Sanchez he was asking questions on topics the court had already ruled were not relevant.
¶ 20 Craig Shonkwiler was IDOT's next witness. Shonkwiler testified he held a certified residential appraisal license and a broker's real estate license and he was a professional real estate appraiser. IDOT hired Shonkwiler to appraise the property in May 2020. Shonkwiler indicated the property was a vacant corner lot, approximately 59 feet by 118 feet, its highest and best use was as residential property, and the fair market value of the property was $7000.
¶ 21 Torres Sanchez testified on his own behalf and told the jury he was going to give his expert opinion on the ethics of the law. The trial court instructed Torres Sanchez to limit his testimony to the relevant facts of the case. The court sustained IDOT's objection when Torres Sanchez attempted to testify about construction and economics. Torres Sanchez then testified the appraiser did not have sufficient information to appraise the value of the lot, which was valued at $20,000 in 2011. Again, the court sustained the State's objection and told Torres Sanchez the land's value in 2011 was not relevant.
¶ 22 The trial court then asked Torres Sanchez to provide any evidence he had with regard to the value of the property on May 7, 2020. Torres Sanchez responded he would "be participating in this crime if [he] just focused on that" and returned to the topic of the property's value in 2011. The court interrupted and warned Torres Sanchez it would stop his testimony if he continued to violate the court's orders and discuss the value of the land prior to May 7, 2020. Thereafter, Torres Sanchez told the jury about the City's demolition lien against the property and the loss he incurred when the City demolished the building on the property. The State again objected, and the court instructed Torres Sanchez to step down from the witness stand. Afterwards, Torres Sanchez complained none of his witnesses were allowed to testify. However, the court noted Torres Sanchez failed to subpoena any witnesses.
¶ 23 The jury returned a verdict finding just compensation for the property to be $7000.
¶ 25 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 26 Torres Sanchez proceeded pro se both in the trial court and on appeal, which is a difficult task for anyone without legal training regardless of their level of education and intelligence. However, Illinois courts treat pro se litigants the same as licensed attorneys. A pro se litigant must comply with the same rules and is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney. Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78.
¶ 27 This is true in the trial court and this court of review. As the Third District recently stated, "the procedural rules governing the content and form of appellate briefs are mandatory and not suggestions." Litwin v. County of La Salle, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 3. A pro se appellant is not excused from following the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff Oct. 1, 2020), which governs the requirements for an appellant's brief to this court. Litwin, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 3.
¶ 28 IDOT argues this court should dismiss Torres Sanchez's appeal because his appellant's brief fails to comply with Rule 341. This court has the discretion to strike an appellant's brief and dismiss an appeal when the appellant's brief does not comply with the requirements of Rule 341. Id. ¶ 11. This is a harsh but appropriate sanction when the appellant's violations of procedural rules hinders our review of the case. Id.
¶ 29 Torres Sanchez's brief in this case violates Rule 341 in multiple ways. For example, other than a few citations to the first 27 pages of the 642-page common law record, defendant provided this court with no other citations to the common law record in his appellant's brief. "A reviewing court is not obligated to search the record for evidence on which to base a reversal, and unless reference is made to those portions of the record supporting reversal, the argument will not be considered." Webb v. Angell, 155 Ill.App.3d 848, 854 (1987).
¶ 30 In addition, Torres Sanchez has scattered unsupported allegations of error throughout his brief. The only case Torres Sanchez cited in his appellant's brief was Cuerton v. American Hospital Supply Corp., 136 Ill.App.3d 231, 237 (1985), which he cited for the proposition a defendant may move to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint without supporting affidavits if a defect appears on the face of the complaint. Turning to the statutory authority Torres Sanchez included in his appellant's brief, we note that other than general citations to sections 2-615 and 2619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2020)), he only cited a statute concerning criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1 (West 2020)), a criminal statute regarding residential picketing (id. § 21.1-1 (West 2020)), and the Illinois False Claims Act (740 ILCS 175 etseq. (West 2020)). Torres Sanchez's appellant's brief provides no analysis to explain why these statutes are relevant to IDOT's eminent domain action against him, and we see none.
¶ 31 Other than making conclusory allegations, Torres Sanchez's appellant's brief provided this court with no legal authority or analysis supporting his claims of error. In much the same manner that this court is not obligated to search the record to find reasons to reverse the trial court's judgment, this court is also not a depository into which an appellant may dump the burden of research and argument with regard to the issues he raises on appeal. In re Marriage of Hundley, 2019 IL App (4th) 180380, ¶ 82. Instead, this court is "entitled to have the issues clearly defined and a cohesive legal argument presented." Id. As a result, pursuant to Rule 341(h)(7), Torres Sanchez forfeited every allegation of error he included in his appellant's brief. Regardless of forfeiture, to the extent we understand Torres Sanchez's contentions of error, his assertions seem meritless.
¶ 32 We recognize the dismissal of an appeal is a harsh sanction. However, because of the deficiencies in Torres Sanchez's appellant's brief, including the forfeiture of every assertion of error he raised on appeal, we find the dismissal of his appeal appropriate based on the facts of this case.
¶ 33 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 34 For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion and strike Torres Sanchez's brief and dismiss the appeal.
¶ 35 Appeal dismissed.