In re Marriage of Kiamco, 2025 IL App (3d) 230249-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Kiamco, 2025 IL App (3d) 230249-U - A litigant's appeal crumbled entirely—ADA violations, due process claims, judicial bias allegations—not because she was wrong, but because she preserved nothing: no transcripts, no written objections, no documented accommodation requests. In re Marriage of Kiamco delivers a brutal reminder that in Illinois dissolution battles, the party who fails to build an airtight evidentiary record hands their opponent victory by default.

The opposing counsel just handed us a masterclass in how to lose an appeal before it even begins.

In re Marriage of Kiamco, 2025 IL App (3d) 230249-U, isn't just another Rule 23 non-precedential order collecting dust in the Third District's archives. It's a tactical blueprint—a cautionary tale that exposes exactly how self-represented litigants (and frankly, some attorneys who should know better) sabotage their own cases through record preservation failures.

Your opposition just blinked. The question is whether you're positioned to capitalize.

The Kiamco Collapse: Anatomy of an Appellate Disaster

Vickie Kiamco came to the Third District Appellate Court swinging at everything: ADA violations, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, judicial bias, and an income finding she insisted was against the manifest weight of the evidence. She even attempted to drag in post-decree grievances about withheld transcripts and alleged unauthorized modifications.

The result? Affirmed in part. Dismissed in part. Total defeat across every substantive claim.

Here's what the court actually said, stripped of diplomatic judicial language: You didn't give us anything to work with.

The appellate court emphasized—with the kind of patience that barely conceals judicial frustration—that appellate review is confined to the record presented. No transcripts documenting the alleged ADA accommodation denials? No evidence the trial court "forced" pro se status? No preserved objections establishing judicial bias?

Then no reversal. Period.

The Record Is Your Weapon—Or Your Grave

Let me be direct: in high-asset Illinois dissolution cases, the party who controls the record controls the outcome. This isn't aspirational advice. This is battlefield doctrine.

Kiamco attempted to argue the trial court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide accommodations. The appellate court's response was surgical: show us the request, show us the denial, show us the objection. She couldn't. Because none of it was preserved.

The same fate befell her judicial bias claims. Illinois law requires specific, preserved instances of bias—not generalized grievances filed months later. Without contemporaneous objections entered into the record, you're asking an appellate court to speculate. They won't.

And the income finding? Despite references to discovery orders, financial affidavits, subpoenas, and tax complications in the existing record, respondent failed to demonstrate the trial court's determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court had materials before it. The appellant simply didn't prove the conclusion was unreasonable.

Strategic Takeaway: Document Everything, Preserve Everything

If you're handling a contested dissolution—especially one involving complex asset structures, business valuations, or disputed income—your trial conduct must anticipate appellate review from day one:


Order court reporters for every substantive hearing. Not just trial. Motions. Status conferences where rulings occur. Discovery disputes. If a judge makes a decision that could matter later, you need the transcript.
Make your objections explicit and on the record. "Objection" isn't enough. State the grounds. State the constitutional basis if applicable. Create the appellate hook.
Document accommodation requests in writing. ADA claims require evidence of request and denial. File written motions. Get written rulings. If denied orally, immediately memorialize it.
Preserve financial evidence through proper discovery channels. Subpoenaed records, forensic accountant reports, deposition testimony—all of it must be admitted or at minimum offered and refused with an objection preserved.


The Jurisdictional Trap: Post-Decree Claims Die on Arrival

Kiamco also attempted to raise post-decree issues—alleged withholding of transcripts, fee waiver denials, purported unauthorized modifications to the dissolution judgment. The appellate court's response was swift: dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is black-letter Illinois appellate procedure, yet litigants (and occasionally counsel) continue walking into this trap. An appeal from a final dissolution judgment does not automatically confer jurisdiction over subsequent proceedings. Post-decree disputes require their own notices of appeal, their own jurisdictional hooks.

If your client has legitimate grievances about post-decree conduct—whether it's enforcement failures, modification disputes, or procedural violations—those claims need separate appellate treatment. Attempting to bootstrap them onto a final judgment appeal is jurisdictional suicide.

The Self-Representation Danger Zone

The Kiamco opinion references respondent proceeding pro se and claiming the court "forced" this status. The appellate court found no record support for this assertion.

Here's the reality for Illinois practitioners: when counsel withdraws mid-litigation, the client faces a critical inflection point. The strategic response isn't passive acceptance—it's aggressive preservation:


Move for continuance immediately. Document the request. Get a ruling on the record.
If accommodations are needed, file a written motion specifying the accommodation and legal basis. ADA, due process, whatever applies. Create the paper trail.
Object—on the record—if the court denies reasonable requests. "For the record, respondent objects to proceeding without counsel and without the requested accommodation, and preserves this objection for appellate review."


Without these steps, claims of forced pro se status become exactly what they became in Kiamco: unsubstantiated assertions that appellate courts cannot credit.

Income Findings and the Manifest Weight Standard

Challenging a trial court's income determination on appeal is already an uphill battle. The manifest weight of the evidence standard is deferential—you must show the finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.

In Kiamco, the record reflected discovery orders, financial affidavits, subpoenas, and tax-related disputes. The appellate court found sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court's income finding. Respondent's challenge failed because she couldn't demonstrate the conclusion was against the manifest weight—not merely that she disagreed with it.

For practitioners handling income disputes in high-asset cases, this reinforces several imperatives:


Get your financial evidence admitted. Forensic reports, business valuations, lifestyle analyses—all must be properly introduced and made part of the record.
Challenge opposing evidence through cross-examination and objections. If you believe the other side's financial disclosures are fraudulent or incomplete, attack them at trial. Create the record showing why the court shouldn't credit them.
Request specific findings. Ask the trial court to articulate its reasoning on income determinations. This creates a clearer target for appellate review—or exposes the weakness of the opposing position.


The Cyber-Law Angle: Digital Evidence and Discovery Failures

While Kiamco doesn't directly address digital evidence, the case's core lesson—record preservation—has profound implications for tech-driven discovery disputes increasingly common in Illinois dissolutions.

Financial fraud often hides in digital footprints: cryptocurrency wallets, offshore account access logs, cloud-stored business records, metadata revealing asset concealment. When opposing counsel fails to preserve these records—or when a spouse engages in spoliation—the discovery failures become leverage.

But that leverage only exists if you've documented the requests, the failures, and the objections. A motion to compel that dies without a ruling? Useless on appeal. A spoliation claim never raised at trial? Waived.

The Kiamco principle applies with equal force: if it's not in the record, it didn't happen.

Positioning for Victory: The Steele Protocol

Every contested dissolution in Illinois should be approached with appellate consciousness from the initial filing. This isn't paranoia—it's strategic superiority. Consider:


Transcript everything material. Budget for court reporters. The cost is trivial compared to losing an appeal because you can't prove what happened.
Object with precision. Generic objections are worthless. State the rule, statute, or constitutional provision. Make the appellate court's job easy.
Memorialize oral rulings. If the judge rules from the bench, immediately prepare a written order memorializing the ruling and submit it for entry.
Anticipate jurisdictional traps. Know what your notice of appeal covers. File separately for post-decree disputes.
Treat accommodation requests as litigation events. Written motion. Written ruling. Preserved objection if denied.


Your opposition may not be doing any of this. That's their problem—and your advantage.

The Bottom Line

Kiamco isn't a complicated case. It's a simple one—simple in the sense that the outcome was predetermined the moment respondent failed to build an adequate record. Every claim she raised on appeal required evidentiary support she didn't have. The appellate court didn't rule against her on the merits; it ruled against her because she gave them nothing to review.

In high-stakes Illinois dissolution litigation, this is unacceptable. The record is your insurance policy, your appellate ammunition, your protection against judicial error. Neglect it, and you're not practicing law—you're gambling.

The judge already knows which party came prepared. Make sure it's yours.



If you're facing a complex dissolution in Cook County or the collar counties—especially one involving significant assets, income disputes, or procedural complications—you need counsel who builds appellate-proof records from day one.

Book a consultation now. Your opposition is already making mistakes. Let's make sure you're positioned to exploit every single one.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.