Chi. Hous. Auth. v. Santiago

1

2024 IL App (1st) 221252-U

CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAFAEL SANTIAGO and any and all UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS, Defendants, Rafael Santiago, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-22-1252

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Third Division

February 7, 2024

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 Cook County. No. 19 M1 350054 Honorable Christ Stanley Stacey, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

LAMPKIN JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: Trial court's orders denying defendant's motion for a continuance and entering a default eviction order in favor of plaintiff are affirmed.

¶ 2 This appeal follows the entry of a default eviction order against defendant Rafael Santiago, which granted plaintiff the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), possession of an apartment located at 2020 West Schiller Street, in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant appeals pro se, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance of trial, which led to the default eviction order. We affirm.^[1]

¶ 3 The record on appeal consists only of the common law record and one report of proceedings, which is attached as an exhibit to a pleading in the common law record and is largely irrelevant to the subject of this appeal. The following background information is obtained from the common law record.

¶ 4 On December 9, 2016, defendant entered into a residential lease agreement with the CHA for the senior public housing apartment. Under the lease, the CHA had the power to terminate the lease based on a violation of the lease terms, including the destruction of property or engaging in criminal activity that threatened the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the property by other residents or CHA employees.

¶ 5 On February 28, 2019, the CHA filed a complaint for eviction, seeking possession of the unit and citing multiple violations of the lease. In response to the CHA's requests to admit, defendant admitted he walked with a kitchen knife in his waistband and intentionally cut the power cord on a dryer machine in his apartment building.

¶ 6 On August 2, 2019, the trial court permitted defendant's counsel to withdraw from representation. Defendant then proceeded pro se for the remainder of the litigation. The CHA filed a motion for summary judgment, detailing incidents in which defendant threatened staff and building residents, walked the property with a large knife in his waistband, and was seen on surveillance camera cutting the power cord to a dryer machine on the property. Following a hearing at which defendant testified, the court denied the motion for summary judgment.

¶ 7 The trial court set the case for trial for March 26, 2020, and then continued the case numerous times.

¶ 8 On May 24, 2022, defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2022, with defendant present, the court denied the motion and set the pretrial hearing for July 27, 2022, and trial date for August 3, 2022. Defendant failed to appear at the July 27 pretrial hearing, and the court continued the matter to August 2, 2022.

¶ 9 On August 3, 2022, the date set for trial, defendant made an oral motion to continue the trial, which the court denied in a written order. In the order, the court noted that defendant argued "(1) That he is not ready (2) he might get a lawyer and (3) he worked on the campaign of and knows Willie Wilson and Candidate Boykin." The court set forth in detail the five bases for its decision, including defendant's prior failures to appear in court ready for trial.

¶ 10 Also on August 3, 2022, the court entered an eviction order by default, granting the CHA possession of the unit and directing defendant to move out of the unit on or before August 10, 2022. The eviction order further stated that "Defendant appeared in court, and told the court he was leaving the courtroom and would not stay for trial after his motion to continue was denied. A separate order has been entered."

¶ 11 On August 9, 2022, the day before defendant was ordered to move out of the unit, he filed a pro se motion for a continuance to obtain a lawyer. On August 16, 2022, defendant filed a pro se motion to stay the eviction. On August 17, 2022, he filed a pro se notice of appeal.

¶ 12 On August 31, 2022, with all parties appearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to stay enforcement of the possession order entered on August 3, 2022.

¶ 13 An eviction unit affidavit from the Cook County Sheriff's Office states that on September 26, 2022, responding officers arrived at the unit to enforce the court ordered eviction. The responding officers went over the "plaintiff questionnaire" with the "receiver," who was on the scene and agreed to proceed with the eviction. The responding officers made entry into the unit and found it vacant. According to the affidavit, "notice posted" and "receiver given possession."

¶ 14 On September 30, 2022, defendant filed pro se an emergency motion to stay the eviction in this court, asserting that "they change[d] the door lock of my apartment on the 27th of September." He stated that "[w]e are staying in the car for now."

¶ 15 On October 3, 2022, this court allowed defendant's motion until further order of court and directed the CHA to file a response to the motion to stay eviction. Chicago Housing Authority v. Santiago, 1-22-1252 (Oct. 3, 2022) (disposition order).

¶ 16 On October 6, 2022, defendant filed another pro se emergency motion to stay eviction in this court, stating that the manager of the building refused to let him into the unit after he showed her this court's order. Defendant also stated that he went to the "Sherrif [ sic ] Department" at the Daley Center, which informed him that "once the eviction is already in place [it] is out of their hands."

¶ 17 On October 7, 2022, the CHA filed a response to defendant's motions to stay, stating that on September 26, 2022, the Cook County Sheriff executed the trial court's eviction order and evicted defendant. The CHA stated that defendant filed an emergency motion to stay eviction with this court on September 30, 2022, nearly 30 days after the trial court denied a motion to stay and after defendant had been evicted, but he did not mention he had already been evicted. In its motion, the CHA argued that defendant's motions to stay the eviction were moot.

¶ 18 On October 13, 2022, this court entered an order stating that it had been "further advised that Defendant-Appellant had already been evicted from the premises prior to this court's granting the stay on October 3, 2022." We vacated the October 3, 2022, order granting a stay of eviction and denied defendant's October 6, 2022, emergency motion to stay eviction. Chicago Housing Authority v. Santiago, 1-22-1252 (Oct. 13, 2022) (disposition order).

¶ 19 On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance of trial in the eviction proceedings and granting possession to the CHA by default. Specifically, he states that he was denied his right to a jury trial and requests that we reverse the trial court's decision to evict him "on the grounds of default defendant not in court." He further argues that he was "never found guilty of the crime in which the original violation of lease was issued."

¶ 20 We agree with the CHA that defendant's brief, submitted using portions of the Supreme Court's approved preprinted appellant brief form, fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct 1, 2020), which provides mandatory procedural rules that govern the content and format of appellate briefs. Voris v. Voris, 2011 IL App (1st) 103814, ¶ 8. For example, the section labeled "statement of facts" fails to cite to the record and improperly includes argument. Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Additionally, the brief omits the designated "jurisdiction" section, as well as the "argument" section in which defendant was required to provide cohesive legal arguments with citations to relevant law. See Ill. S.Ct. R. 341(h)(4)(ii), (7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).

¶ 21 This court will not be more lenient with pro se litigants, who must still comply with all the same rules of procedure as other litigants. Gillard v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 2019 IL App (1st) 182348, ¶ 45. Supreme court rules are not mere suggestions, and we may strike the brief and dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the rules. North Community Bank v. 17011 South Park Ave., LLC, 2015 IL App (1st) 133672, ¶ 14. The CHA requests that we reject defendant's brief and arguments on that basis and affirm the trial court's decision. Although it would be within our discretion to strike defendant's brief and dismiss the appeal for the inadequacies of his brief (Gillard, 2019 IL App (1st) 182348, ¶ 45), we find that we are precluded from considering the merits of this appeal for a different reason.

¶ 22 As an initial matter, although neither party addresses mootness in their briefs on appeal, mootness is a jurisdictional question that we may review sua sponte. Davis v. City of Country Club Hills, 2013 IL App (1st) 123634, ¶ 10. An appeal is moot if there is no actual controversy, or when it has become impossible for the reviewing court to render effectual relief. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm n, 2016 IL 118129 ¶ 10. Appellate jurisdiction requires an actual controversy. Baker v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County, 2015 IL App (1st) 141157, ¶ 35. We will not consider moot issues, render advisory opinions, or consider...