In re Marriage of Gutman

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » Supreme Court » 2008 » In re Marriage of Gutman

State: Illinois

Docket No: 105648 Rel

Case Date: 11/20/2008

Preview:Docket No. 105648.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

In re MARRIAGE OF DANIEL GUTMAN, Appellee, and MARY GUTMAN, Appellant. Opinion filed November 20, 2008.

JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Garman, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION This case concerns whether the trial court's order terminating maintenance to Mary Gutman was final and appealable without a finding under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 Ill. 2d R. 304(a)) when Mary's civil contempt petition against Daniel Gutman was still pending. The appellate court held that, although a civil contempt petition is part of the underlying action, it does not, for purposes of Rule 304(a), raise a "claim for relief" in that action. Thus, according to the appellate court, the circuit court of Lake County's order terminating maintenance was final and appealable without a Rule 304(a) finding. The appellate court dismissed Mary's appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

finding it untimely since it was filed more than 30 days after the final order determining maintenance. 376 Ill. App. 3d 758. BACKGROUND The parties' marriage was dissolved on September 12, 1996. At the time of dissolution, the trial court reserved the issue of maintenance. In July 1999, the court entered an order requiring Daniel to pay maintenance in the amount of $2,900 per month for a period of three years. On June 21, 2002, Mary filed a motion seeking to continue and modify the maintenance award. On July 3, 2002, the trial court entered an agreed order granting Daniel until August 7, 2002, to file a response to Mary's petition, and ordered Daniel to continue making maintenance payments until further order of the court. On August 20, 2003, Daniel filed a motion seeking to modify the judgment for dissolution and to terminate maintenance. On September 18, 2003, Mary filed a petition for indirect civil contempt, alleging that Daniel had stopped making maintenance payments as of September 1, 2003, in violation of the July 3, 2002, order. On September 25, 2003, the court entered a rule to show cause against Daniel. The court set a date for hearing on the rule, together with the parties' pending maintenance petitions. Mary did not appear at the scheduled hearing. The court granted Daniel's petition to terminate maintenance and dismissed Mary's contempt petition. Mary successfully moved to vacate both judgments, but on the next hearing date, Mary again failed to appear. The court once again granted Daniel's motion to terminate maintenance and dismissed with prejudice Mary's motion to continue and modify maintenance. The court's written order, entered on June 23, 2005, did not address the contempt petition, nor did it contain a finding pursuant to Rule 304(a). On July 22, 2005, Mary brought a motion to vacate the June 23, 2005, order, which the trial court denied. Thirty-five days later, Mary filed a motion to reconsider. The court denied the motion and Mary appealed. The appellate court dismissed Mary's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 376 Ill. App. 3d 758. The court held that, despite the -2-

pendency of the contempt petition, the trial court's judgment granting Daniel's petition to terminate maintenance was a final judgment as to all "claims for relief" in the dissolution action, subject to Rule 303(a). The court held that the contempt petition did not raise a "claim for relief" in the dissolution action, which would have required a Rule 304(a) finding, but that it was an original special proceeding independent of the underlying case. 376 Ill. App. 3d at 764. Because Mary failed to file her appeal within 30 days of the order granting Daniel's petition or within 30 days of the denial of her motion to vacate, her appeal was untimely. 376 Ill. App. 3d at 759. We allowed Mary's petition for leave to appeal (210 Ill. 2d R. 315(a)). ANALYSIS At the outset, we consider a threshold issue

Download In re Marriage of Gutman.pdf