Reace v. Reace
| Decision Date | 09 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 62254,62254 |
| Citation | 350 N.E.2d 143,39 Ill.App.3d 496 |
| Parties | Susan W. REACE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard H. REACE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Patrick J. Leston, Villa Park, for defendant-appellant.
Friedman, Armstrong & Donnelly, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Edwin R. Armstrong, James R. Donnelly, James T. Friedman, Chicago, of counsel.
Carol G. Hochfelder, Chicago, Guardian ad Litem.
Defendant appeals from an order, entered on May 12, 1975, denying defendant's petition to change and alter an order, entered on April 7, 1975. The latter order, from which defendant also appeals, reads in pertinent part as follows:
In his petition of May 7, 1975, defendant asserted that 'this portion of the order was entered without the understanding of (defendant) Petitioner, although ostensibly by agreement,' that defendant wished to assist in the religious training of the child, and that the order be altered to reflect defendant's true intention. The order of May 12, 1975, denying defendant's petition to change and alter, recited that the court had been 'apprised in the premises' and had 'heard arguments of counsel.' The order of April 7, 1975, recites that 'the parties (were) represented in Court by counsel and the parties' minor child (was) represented by a Guardian ad Litem.'
This court has not been presented with a complete record on appeal. There is no report of proceedings for either April 7, 1975 or May 12, 1975. Where an appellant does not being before a reviewing court a complete report of proceedings, the reviewing court will presume that the omitted report of proceedings justifies the order from which the appeal is taken. (O'Berry v. O'Berry, 36 Ill.App.2d 163, 183 N.E.2d 539.) Therefore, in the absence of a report of proceedings for either April 7, 1975 or for May 12, 1975, the orders of the circuit court of Cook County entered in this case on those dates are affirmed.
ORDERS AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Brophy, In re
...a presumption exists that the omitted report of proceedings justifies the order from which the appeal is taken (Reace v. Reace (1976), 39 Ill.App.3d 496, 350 N.E.2d 143) and any incompleteness will be resolved against an appellant. (Brokerage Resources, Inc. v. Jordan (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d ......
-
Dugan's Bistro, Inc. v. Daley, 76-320
...V. The appellee next contends that the appeal should be dismissed because no report of proceedings was filed, citing Reace v. Reace (1976), 39 Ill.App.3d 496, 350 N.E.2d 143, leave to appeal denied. The facts in the instant case are that on appeal to the trial court the plaintiff removed th......
-
Marriage of Macaluso, In re, 82-148
...ability to do so. Brokerage Resources, Inc. v. Jordan (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 605, 35 Ill.Dec. 940, 400 N.E.2d 77; Reace v. Reace (1976), 39 Ill.App.3d 496, 350 N.E.2d 143. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the trial court awarding custody of the minor child to the father is affirmed, a......
-
King v. King
...court will presume that the omitted report of proceedings justifies the order from which the appeal is taken." Reace v. Reace, 39 Ill.App.3d 496, 497, 350 N.E.2d 143, 144 (1976). However, we note that the court's order did not state any specific sum as appearing on the clerk's record; rathe......