A recent court decision highlights the challenges faced by individuals representing themselves in legal matters. On August 5, 2024, La’twell S. Haywood filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Ira G. Cherry, seeking compensation for expenses related to a motor vehicle collision.
The case stems from an incident on June 20, 2022, when Cherry's vehicle reportedly experienced steering issues and collided with Haywood's car at 9600 South Princeton Avenue in Chicago. Haywood sought $1,394.93 for a three-week vehicle rental, plus court costs and fees. She provided various documents to support her claim, including a traffic crash police report, handwritten notes, photographs of the damaged vehicle, and invoices for repairs and rentals.
Despite these efforts, the trial court ruled in favor of Cherry on June 16, 2023. Haywood appealed the decision but admitted that her evidence at trial was "incomplete." She requested that the appellate court reverse the judgment and remand the case to consider new evidence she had gathered post-trial.
However, Haywood's appeal faced significant procedural hurdles. Her brief failed to comply with several Supreme Court rules governing appellate briefs, lacking essential components such as a "Points and Authorities" statement and a coherent argument section with citations. The appellate court emphasized that even pro se litigants must adhere to these rules.
Moreover, the appellate court noted that its review is confined to the record on appeal and cannot consider new evidence gathered after trial. The absence of a comprehensive record—including a report of proceedings or an agreed statement of facts—further hampered Haywood's case. As a result, the court presumed that the trial court acted correctly based on the available evidence and affirmed its ruling.
Representing herself proved challenging for Haywood as she navigated complex legal procedures without adequate documentation or adherence to required formats. This case underscores the importance of thorough preparation and compliance with procedural rules in legal proceedings.
The presiding judge was Patricia M. Fallon, with Justices Fitzgerald Smith delivering the judgment and Justices Lavin and Coghlan concurring.