petitioner was living with someone was irrelevant, as the monthly payments of $200 were part of the overall distribution of marital assets and debt. The trial court stated that it reached this conclusion after examining the agreement and the transcript of the dissolution proceedings. Based on these documents, the trial court found that the clear intent of the parties was that the $200 per month constituted car payments. Respondent timely appealed. Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we note that petitioner, as appellee, has failed to file a brief in this court. Because we find the issue presented relatively straightforward, we may decide this case without petitioner’s brief, pursuant to First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976) (<HOLDING>). See In re Marriage of Duffy, 307 Ill. App. 3d
holding court will not process or decide the merits of any case on appeal that does not comply with the statute holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board holding that a reviewing court must address an appellees reply as to preservation of error and an alternative argument in an appellees reply holding that a reviewing court should decide the merits of an appeal where the record is simple and the claimed error is such that a decision can be made easily without the aid of an appellees brief holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error