In re Marriage of May, 2025 IL App (5th) 241179-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of May, 2025 IL App (5th) 241179-U - The article analyzes In re Marriage of May (2025), a case where the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court dismissed an appeal concerning pension division because an unresolved petition for rule to show cause remained pending in the trial court, rendering the order non-final and unappealable without Rule 304(a) certification. The author uses this dismissal to emphasize that Illinois appellate courts lack jurisdiction over interlocutory orders unless they meet specific finality requirements, urging practitioners to audit pending matters, obtain written orders, and strategically use Rule 304(a) findings before filing appeals.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and they don't even know it yet. While they're busy drafting pension division motions with sloppy procedural posture, the Fifth District Appellate Court just handed us a masterclass in why jurisdiction isn't a technicality. It's a weapon.

In re Marriage of May (2025 IL App (5th) 241179-U) didn't reach the merits. It didn't need to. The appeal was dismissed before the substantive arguments ever saw daylight. That's not a loss on the law—that's a loss on the fundamentals. And in high-stakes divorce litigation, fundamentals separate the amateurs from the professionals.

The Jurisdictional Guillotine: What Happened in May

Amy May appealed a trial court order addressing pension allocation following dissolution. She raised legitimate questions: Did the trial court properly specify the method and period for pension apportionment under the marital settlement agreement? Should there have been an evidentiary hearing on valuation and QDRO matters?

We'll never know the answers. The Fifth District dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The fatal flaw? An unresolved petition for rule to show cause remained pending in the trial court. The August 29, 2024 docket entry addressed the pension period—limiting the award to the marriage date through dissolution—but it didn't dispose of the contempt petition filed months earlier. No express grant. No express denial. No Rule 304(a) certification.

No appeal.

Why This Matters: The Finality Doctrine as Strategic Leverage

Illinois appellate courts don't have discretionary jurisdiction over interlocutory orders in most family law matters. The general rule is absolute: only final orders—or orders meeting narrow exceptions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304—are appealable. The appellate court must examine jurisdiction sua sponte, meaning they'll raise the issue even if neither party does.

The court in May relied on established precedent, including In re Marriage of Gutman, holding that an unresolved contempt or rule-to-show-cause petition prevents a final appealable order absent specific Rule 304(a) findings. This isn't new law. It's foundational. And it's being violated in courtrooms across Illinois every week by attorneys who treat procedure as an afterthought.

Here's the strategic reality: if you're the party who benefits from delay, an unresolved collateral petition is your friend. If you're the party seeking appellate review, it's a landmine. Know where the landmines are before you step.

The QDRO Problem: Pension Division Demands Precision

Beyond the jurisdictional dismissal, May highlights a recurring nightmare in post-dissolution litigation: pension allocation disputes that fester because the underlying order lacks specificity.

A marital settlement agreement that references pension division without specifying the valuation method, the coverture fraction, or the treatment of post-dissolution contributions is an invitation to litigation. A trial court order that "resolves" the issue via docket entry rather than a detailed written order is an invitation to appellate dismissal.

QDROs are not ministerial documents. They require precision on:


The marital portion of the benefit (typically calculated using a coverture fraction)
The valuation date and method
Whether the non-participant spouse receives a share of post-dissolution enhancements
Survivor benefit elections and their cost allocation
The treatment of early retirement subsidies or cost-of-living adjustments


If your MSA or dissolution judgment is vague on these points, you're not done litigating. You're just getting started.

The Tech-Law Intersection: Discovery Leverage You're Missing

Now let's talk about what sophisticated practitioners are doing while opposing counsel is tripping over Rule 304(a).

In high-net-worth dissolutions, pension and retirement account discovery increasingly intersects with digital forensics. Consider: your opposing party claims the pension value is X, but the plan administrator's online portal shows login activity suggesting account modifications. Or the spouse with the defined contribution plan has been making allocation changes—documented in digital records—that affect the marital portion calculation.

Cyber negligence isn't just a buzzword. It's leverage. When a party fails to preserve electronic records, uses shared devices without understanding metadata implications, or makes undisclosed cryptocurrency transactions that affect the marital estate, you have discovery ammunition that transcends the pension issue.

I routinely coordinate with forensic specialists to examine:


Login records and IP addresses for financial account access
Metadata on financial documents produced in discovery
Cloud storage activity that contradicts sworn asset disclosures
Communication records that establish knowledge of asset concealment


The party who controls the digital narrative controls the negotiation. The party who ignores it gets surprised at trial—or worse, at the appellate level when the record they needed doesn't exist.

Practical Directives: Protecting Your Appellate Rights

Based on the May dismissal and the broader landscape of post-dissolution pension litigation, here are non-negotiable practice points:

1. Audit Your Pending Matters Before Filing Any Appeal

Before you file a notice of appeal, conduct a complete docket review. Identify every pending motion, petition, or claim—including rule-to-show-cause petitions, fee petitions, and unresolved discovery disputes. If any remain pending, either obtain their disposition or request Rule 304(a) findings in writing.

2. Demand Written Orders, Not Docket Entries

A docket entry is not a substitute for a signed, written order. If the trial court rules from the bench on a pension issue, prepare and submit a proposed order that explicitly addresses:


The marital portion and valuation method
The time period covered
The disposition of any pending contempt or enforcement petitions
Whether the order is final as to the pension issue


If the court won't sign your proposed order, file a motion for clarification or reconsideration to create a reviewable record.

3. Request Evidentiary Hearings on Contested Valuation Issues

If the pension valuation is disputed—whether due to post-dissolution contributions, the treatment of disability benefits, or the application of a specific coverture formula—you need an evidentiary hearing. Stipulated facts and attorney argument are insufficient to preserve complex valuation disputes for appeal.

Bring your expert. Make your record. Document the methodology dispute in testimony, not just briefs.

4. Use Rule 304(a) Strategically

If you need to appeal an order while other matters remain pending, move for Rule 304(a) findings. The trial court must make an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal. Without those magic words, you don't have appellate jurisdiction.

This isn't optional. This isn't a formality. This is the difference between having your appeal heard and having it dismissed.

5. Coordinate Pension Discovery with Digital Forensics

In any dissolution involving significant retirement assets, issue discovery requests that capture electronic records: account access logs, beneficiary change histories, allocation modification records, and communication with plan administrators. These records establish timelines and contradict false narratives.

If your opposing party has been less than forthcoming about asset values, the digital trail often tells the truth they won't.

The Power Dynamic: Who Controls the Procedure Controls the Outcome

In re Marriage of May is a cautionary tale, but it's also an opportunity. The party who understands appellate jurisdiction requirements—and uses them strategically—holds the procedural high ground. The party who doesn't is filing appeals that die on arrival.

In high-net-worth dissolution, every procedural advantage compounds. The spouse who can delay appellate review while assets appreciate (or depreciate, depending on the allocation) gains leverage. The spouse who can force immediate review of a favorable ruling locks in the win. Procedure isn't neutral. It's a weapon.

The attorneys who treat Rule 304(a) as an afterthought are the same attorneys who fail to coordinate discovery with forensic specialists, who accept vague MSA language on pension division, and who file appeals without checking the docket for unresolved matters. They're not playing the same game.

The Consult You Should Have Scheduled Yesterday

If you're facing a post-dissolution pension dispute, a contested QDRO, or any high-asset divorce matter where appellate strategy matters, you need counsel who understands both the substantive law and the procedural battlefield.

Your opposition is already making mistakes. The question is whether you're positioned to exploit them.

Book a consultation now. The jurisdictional clock is ticking, and the appellate court doesn't care about your good intentions.

[[CONFIDENCE:9|SWAGGER:9]]

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.