In re Marriage of Olusanya, 2025 IL App (1st) 240851-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Olusanya, 2025 IL App (1st) 240851-U - A pro se litigant's failure to preserve a single hearing transcript doomed her challenge to $32,000 in sanctions, as the Illinois First District presumed the trial court's rulings correct and let the award stand — even though opposing counsel never filed a brief. In re Marriage of Olusanya serves as a stark warning that in high-stakes divorce litigation, the appeal is effectively won or lost at the trial level the moment a party secures the record or lets it vanish.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot — because they assumed a missing transcript wouldn't matter on appeal.

They were wrong. And in In re Marriage of Olusanya, the First District just reminded every family law practitioner in Illinois exactly how devastating that mistake is. If you're in a high-net-worth divorce, a sanctions fight, or staring down a Rule 137 motion, this case is your wake-up call — or your weapon. Depends which side of the courtroom you're standing on.

What Happened: The $32,000 Lesson in Record Preservation

The judge already knows what happens when you show up to an appeal empty-handed. In In re Marriage of Olusanya, No. 1-24-0851, 2025 IL App (1st) 240851-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Aug. 13, 2025), Adeola Olusanya — appearing pro se — challenged the trial court's denial of her petition for rule to show cause, denial of her emergency motion to continue a hearing, and the court's award of $32,000 in sanctions and attorney fees to her ex-husband Rotimi under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 and Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/508(b)).

She lost. Not because the appellate court weighed the merits and found her arguments wanting. She lost because she never provided a transcript or acceptable substitute of the critical hearings below.

The First District, issuing this as a Rule 23 order (nonprecedential but instructive), applied the bedrock principle: when the appellant fails to furnish an adequate record on appeal, the reviewing court presumes the trial court's rulings were correct and supported by sufficient findings. Full stop. The $32,000 sanctions award stood. The denials stood. Everything stood — because the appellate court had nothing to review.

The Rules That Buried This Appeal

Three Illinois Supreme Court Rules did the heavy lifting here, and every litigant — represented or not — needs to internalize them:

• Rule 321: The record on appeal must include the judgment or order appealed from, the notice of appeal, and a complete report of proceedings (the transcript).
• Rule 323: If a verbatim transcript isn't available, the appellant can file a bystander's report or an agreed statement of facts as a substitute. These are lifelines — but only if you actually use them.
• Rule 324: Reinforces the requirement that the record be certified and complete.

Adeola provided none of these for the March 18, 2024 hearing — the hearing where the sanctions were imposed, where the continuance was denied, where the rule to show cause was rejected. Without that record, the appellate court could not assess factual findings, credibility determinations, or the trial court's reasoning. The presumption of correctness attached like a lien on a marital asset — and it wasn't coming off.

Pro Se Status Is Not a Shield

The court reiterated a principle that should be tattooed on the wall of every self-help center in Cook County: pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys. The rules don't bend because you chose to represent yourself. They don't offer a grace period. They don't send a reminder email.

This isn't cruelty — it's structural necessity. If courts relaxed procedural requirements for unrepresented parties, the entire appellate framework would collapse under inconsistent standards. The First District has said this before. They said it again here. They will say it next month.

If you're going pro se in a high-stakes dissolution case — particularly one involving sanctions exposure — understand that the procedural machinery will grind forward with or without your compliance. And when it grinds, it grinds fine.

Rule 137 and Section 508(b): The Sanctions Architecture

The trial court invoked two distinct but complementary mechanisms to impose the $32,000 award:

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 is the state analog to federal Rule 11. It authorizes sanctions when a party files pleadings, motions, or other papers that are not well-grounded in fact, not warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for modification of existing law, or interposed for improper purposes such as harassment or delay. The trial court found that Adeola's litigation conduct triggered these provisions.

Section 508(b) of the IMDMA (750 ILCS 5/508(b)) permits a court to order a party to pay the other side's attorney fees when that party's conduct has caused the opposing party to incur fees and costs that would not otherwise have been necessary. This is a "bad conduct" fee-shifting provision — distinct from the needs-based fee provision in Section 508(a) — and it punishes litigation abuse directly.

Together, these provisions gave the trial court broad authority to sanction conduct it deemed vexatious, dilatory, or meritless. And because no transcript existed to challenge the factual underpinnings of that determination, the appellate court had no basis to disturb it.

The Appellee Didn't Even File a Brief — And Still Won

Here's the detail that should make every appellant's blood run cold: Rotimi didn't file an appellee's brief. Under established Illinois appellate practice, when the appellee defaults on briefing, the court may decide the case on the appellant's brief alone. This should have been an advantage for Adeola.

It wasn't. Because an inadequate record defeats even an unopposed appeal. The court doesn't need opposing counsel to point out that the transcript is missing. The court checks the record itself. And when the record is incomplete, the presumption of correctness does the appellee's work for free.

Your opposition just blinked — they didn't even show up to the appellate fight — and they still collected. That's how powerful record preservation is as a strategic tool.

Strategic Takeaways for High-Net-Worth Illinois Divorce Litigation

1. Secure the Transcript. Every Time. No Exceptions.

If there is any possibility — any — that you will appeal a ruling, order a certified transcript of every substantive hearing immediately. Do not wait for the notice of appeal. Do not assume you'll remember what happened. Do not assume a bystander's report will be easy to prepare after the fact. Court reporters have backlogs. Memories fade. Opposing counsel will not agree to your version of events in an agreed statement.

In remote hearings — which are now standard in many Cook County courtrooms — confirm that the proceeding is being recorded and that a transcript can be ordered. If the platform glitches, if you get disconnected, if the recording fails, raise it on the record immediately or file a motion to reconstruct. Silence is waiver.

2. Treat Remote Hearing Attendance as a Non-Negotiable

Olusanya involved a denied emergency continuance. The details of why the continuance was sought — and why it was denied — are locked in the missing transcript. But the pattern is familiar in post-COVID family law practice: a party fails to appear or remain connected to a remote hearing, then seeks emergency relief after the fact.

If you need a continuance, file the motion early, support it with documentation (medical records, not just assertions), and confirm service. If you're appearing remotely, test your technology before the hearing, have a backup device, and log in early. Trial courts have limited patience for technical excuses, and the record will reflect your absence regardless of the reason.

3. Build Your Sanctions Defense Before You Need It

If your litigation conduct is being questioned — if opposing counsel is making noise about Rule 137 or Section 508(b) — do not wait for the motion to land. Audit your own filings. Ensure every motion has a factual and legal basis that you can articulate on the record. Document your good-faith basis for every position. If a filing is aggressive, make sure it's aggressive for a reason that a judge will respect, not one that will generate a sanctions order.

Conversely, if you're the party seeking sanctions, build the evidentiary record meticulously. Contemporaneous billing records, detailed fee affidavits, a clear narrative connecting the opposing party's specific conduct to the specific fees incurred. The trial court in Olusanya awarded $32,000 — that number came from somewhere, and the appellant couldn't challenge it because the record didn't exist on appeal. Don't give your opponent that same gift. Make the record bulletproof at the trial level.

4. Cyber Negligence Is Discovery Leverage — Even in Family Law

This case didn't turn on digital evidence, but the principle extends naturally: in an era where financial records, communications, and asset documentation live on devices and in cloud accounts, a party's failure to preserve digital evidence — or their affirmative destruction of it — creates the same kind of adverse inference that a missing transcript creates on appeal. Courts presume the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the party who failed to preserve it.

If your spouse is deleting financial records, wiping devices, or "losing" access to accounts, that conduct is sanctionable under the same framework that produced the $32,000 award in Olusanya. Document the spoliation. Subpoena the platforms. Retain a forensic examiner. The intersection of cybersecurity negligence and family law discovery is where modern high-net-worth cases are won and lost.

5. The "Pro Se Discount" Does Not Exist

If you are advising a client who is considering self-representation — or if you are a litigant reading this — absorb the holding of Olusanya completely. The appellate court did not soften its analysis because Adeola was unrepresented. It applied the same rules, the same burdens, and the same presumptions it would apply to a party represented by a large firm. The result was identical to what it would have been if a lawyer had made the same procedural errors.

Self-representation in a contested dissolution with sanctions exposure is not a cost-saving measure. It is a risk multiplier. The money you save on attorney fees, you may pay in sanctions, adverse rulings, and irreversible procedural defaults.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Olusanya is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order. It will not be cited as binding authority. But it is a precise, clinical illustration of how Illinois appellate courts handle incomplete records — and how sanctions awards survive appeal when the challenging party fails to preserve the very evidence needed to challenge them.

The architecture of this outcome was built at the trial level, not on appeal. By the time the case reached the First District, the result was already locked in. The lesson is unambiguous: the appeal is won or lost in the trial court, in the moment you either secure the record or let it disappear.

If you're facing sanctions exposure, a contested dissolution, or a custody fight where the stakes justify appellate review, the time to protect your position is now — not after the ruling, not after the notice of appeal, and certainly not after the transcript deadline has passed.

Book a consult with our team today. Your opposition is already making mistakes. The question is whether you're positioned to capitalize on them — or making the same ones yourself.

Note: In re Marriage of Olusanya, 2025 IL App (1st) 240851-U, is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order. It may not be cited as binding authority except in limited circumstances permitted under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e). This analysis is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Illinois attorney for guidance on your specific situation.

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.