Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Appellate Law
: Illinois Appellate Lawyer BlogCar Dealership Waives Fraud Argument Because Of Insufficient Record
By Steven R. Merican
Traci Hanson-Suminski bought a Honda from Rohrman Midwest Motors. The car salesman told Traci that the car had not been in an accident. Traci found out otherwise when she tried to sell the car.
Unable to reach a satisfactory agreement with the Rohrman, Traci sued for common law fraud and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A jury gave Traci a favorable verdict for the common law fraud action. The court, without the jury, gave Traci a favorable verdict under the Consumer Fraud Act. Rohrman appealed.
One of Rohrman?s issues was that the common law fraud action was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Traci argued that Rohrman waived the argument for appeal because the dealership did not file a motion in the trial court attacking the common law verdict. Rohrman argued that it ?clearly attacked the sufficiency of the common law fraud judgment and asked for a judgment not withstanding the verdict on the common law fraud claim? in other pleadings in the trial and appellate courts, including a response to Traci?s motion to strike the appeal.
But Rohrman?s assertions were not supported by the appellate record, which, as the party appealing, it was responsible to file. So the First District Illinois Appellate Court sided with Traci and ruled that Rohrman had waived the argument of insufficient evidence on the common law fraud claim.
After a thorough review of the record, however, we have found no indication that plaintiff [Traci] filed a motion to strike this appeal or a response from defendant [Rohrman] to that motion to strike. Furthermore, defendant failed to include such documents in the appendix to its brief and did not cite to these documents within its reply brief. Because ?an appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete record of the proceedings at trial to support a claim of error.? We find that defendant, as appellant, has failed to meet his burden.
Read the whole case, Hanson-Suminski v. Rohrman Midwest Motors, Inc., No. 1-07-0755 (11/7/08), by clicking here.
Full post as published by Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog on February 07, 2009 (boomark / email).
Driving Record Checks
Get your Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) from your State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Online
How to Skirt H-1B Regulations
Senator reacts to YouTube video
Cell Phone Early Termination Fees
How to recover billing errors
H&R Block Retirement Plan Fraud
How to Join Class Action Suit
Settlement
Sears settles with disabled worker for record $6.2M
Investor Fraud
Company president and director Gregory William Rivers to pay $10,000 shareholder fraud settlement.
Qui Tam Whistleblower - Government Fraud - Qui Tam Lawsuit
Qui Tam Whistleblower alleging fraud against the government reported by an individual acting as a government whistleblower.
MRV Communications, Inc. 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
MRV Communications, Inc. 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Texron Inc 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Texron Inc 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
MGM Mirage 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
MGM Mirage 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud

NJ car dealership pays for ripping off Kenneth Hammel
Consumer protection in the driver's seat
Mendez: 371 requires United States to be conspiracy's target









