Huber v. Pointer

── Huber v. Pointer ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 250746-U No. 1-25-0746 Order filed May 8, 2026 Sixth Division 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). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ ASHLEY HUBER, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Petitioner-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 24 OP 73165 ) CHRISTOPHER POINTER, ) Honorable ) Jonathan Clark Green Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice C.A. Walker and Justice Pucinski concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Where respondent-appellant did not provide a sufficiently complete record on appeal for review, judgment is affirmed. ¶2 Christopher Pointer, proceeding pro se, appeals from a plenary stalking no-contact order entered in favor of Ashley Huber. On appeal, Pointer challenges (i) the trial court’s findings, (ii) the authentication and admission of evidence, and (iii) the award of attorney’s fees. Because Pointer did not present a sufficiently complete record on appeal for review, we must affirm. No. 1-25-0746 ¶3 Background ¶4 The facts are derived from the limited record on appeal, which consists solely of the common law record. ¶5 On April 12, 2024, Huber filed a pro se petition for a stalking no-contact order against Pointer under the Stalking No-Contact Order Act (Act) (740 ILCS 21/1 et seq. (West 2022)). Huber alleged that on January 7, 2024, Pointer totaled her car by slashing tires, damaging the driver’s side door, destroying the gas tank cap cover, removing the side mirrors, and pouring white paint over the car. About a month later, Pointer again slashed tires, keyed the word “hoe” on the driver’s side door, and removed a side mirror. On April 4, Pointer was seen on Huber’s Ring camera approaching her back porch holding unknown items. The court denied an emergency order and continued the case for a hearing. ¶6 In response, Pointer asserted that he and Huber were former coworkers who did not interact outside of work. He denied having contact with Huber since March 15, 2024, when Huber allegedly “maliciously contacted” him through a burner phone. Pointer further alleged that Huber misused her employment to obtain his email address and register him for websites, services, and newsletters. He also claimed she sent him text messages from other “burner” phone numbers. Pointer argued that the petition should be denied because (i) Huber was ineligible for protection under the Act, (ii) he had never been physically or verbally abusive, (iii) Huber never stated he made her feel unsafe, (iv) Huber misused her employment to contact him, and (v) other barriers prevented them from engaging with each other. Exhibits attached to Pointer’s response included text messages, emails, and newsletter