A neighborhood dispute that escalated into a legal battle has culminated in the court rejecting all claims brought by the petitioner. On September 18, 2023, Elliander A. Eldridge filed a pro se petition for an order of protection against his neighbor, Stanislaus D. Kochanski, in Madison County Circuit Court. The court ultimately denied the petition after a hearing on October 5, 2023.
The long-standing feud between Eldridge and Kochanski revolves primarily around waste bin placement and various other grievances. Eldridge accused Kochanski of multiple forms of harassment, including throwing waste bins, interfering with waste collection, making harassing complaints to the City of Alton about Eldridge's yard, and even pointing a leaf blower at him. Additional allegations included theft of limestone blocks used to position waste bins, bringing off-leash dogs onto Eldridge's property, allowing trees to fall due to neglect, depositing leaves that killed plants in Eldridge's garden, burning yard waste at night causing smoke issues, and interfering with contractors working on Eldridge’s property.
Eldridge sought both an emergency order and a plenary order of protection but was denied on grounds that his allegations were insufficient for an ex parte emergency order. The court set the matter for a hearing where witnesses testified. However, no transcript or bystander’s report from this hearing was available for review.
In his appeal following the trial court's decision, Eldridge raised several arguments regarding evidentiary rulings. He contended that the court erred in excluding evidence such as photographs and video recordings and limiting testimony to incidents within a year before filing his petition. He also argued that he was not allowed to read from a prepared statement or refer to notes during his testimony despite having an unspecified disability affecting his communication abilities.
Furthermore, Eldridge claimed that the court improperly excluded testimony from his partner Melissa Scharfinski about events she observed through their security camera feed and did not allow her to assist him during his testimony due to her own limited mobility.
The appellate court found no merit in these arguments. It emphasized that without a complete record on appeal—such as transcripts or certified bystander reports—it must presume the trial court’s decisions were correct. Additionally, it ruled that many of Eldridge’s contentions lacked relevance under the Stalking No Contact Order Act rather than under provisions cited from the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.
Eldridge also took issue with procedural aspects such as service of motions via email through Scharfinski’s email address instead of physical mail. The appellate court found no error here either since electronic service is permissible unless otherwise specified by rule or court order.
Ultimately seeking relief that included prohibiting Kochanski from contacting him or entering his property and ordering Kochanski to move a fence back onto his own property line among other requests—the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying all these requests.
Attorneys involved include John Kochanski representing Stanislaus D. Kochanski while Elliander A. Eldridge represented himself pro se throughout this case heard by Judge Maureen D. Schuette under Case ID No: 23-OP-1327.