Stallings v. Santander Consumer USA

── Stallings v. Santander Consumer USA ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 250554-U FIRST DISTRICT SECOND DIVISION April 14, 2026 No. 1-25-0554 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). __________________________________________________________________________ LENORA STALLINGS, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County, Illinois vs. ) ) No. 23 M1 112308 SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., ) RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, and ROSE ) Hon. Maria M. Barlow, TOWING-SKOKIE, ) Judge Presiding ) Defendants-Appellees. ) __________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Van Tine and Justice D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Affirmed. Appellant failed to establish any error in dismissal of fifth amendment complaint. ¶2 Plaintiff Lenora Stallings, acting pro se, filed this lawsuit over the repossession of her automobile for nonpayment. The lienholder of the car was defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc., while the other two defendants—Recovery Services, LLC and Rose Towing-Skokie—were the parties that repossessed the vehicle. ¶3 Plaintiff’s original complaint and the four amended complaints that followed did not identify a cause of action. But her fifth amended complaint alleged seven. The complaint gave a title to each count: (1) a due-process violation; (2) breach of contract; (3) harassment; (4) No. 1-25-0554 defamation; (5) a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act; (6) a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act; and (7) conversion. In addition to these titles, each of the seven counts also purports to allege violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $30,000. ¶4 The circuit court dismissed the fifth amended complaint with prejudice under section 2- 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2024). Plaintiff appeals. Unfortunately, there are severe deficiencies with her appellate brief that make our review impossible. ¶5 The most glaring problem is that plaintiff never claims that the circuit court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Her brief does not ever address the complaint’s alleged pleading deficiencies. Nor does she argue that the court abused its discretion by not allowing her to replead the complaint for a sixth time. ¶6 Her statement of jurisdiction, though checking the correct box for the appropriate supreme court rule providing jurisdiction, complains that “[e]vidence was excluded in the final judgment. Exhibits & Motions filed w/case was not discussed.” Her statement of facts, which never once cites the fifth amended complaint or anything else in the record on appeal, is a nearly eight-page narrative of the evidence plaintiff presumably intends to prove. ¶7 Her argument section similarly contains a list of grievances against defendants with the occasional sprinkle of legal conclusions. For example, she writes in her brief that, in repossessing her vehicle, defendants “violated cease & desist letter” or “[d]eprived plaintiff of due process being no computer-generated order was filed.” Her brief accuses d