Progressive Housing, Inc. v. Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Comm'n, 2024 IL App (1st) 240519-U

Summary

Case Summary: Progressive Housing, Inc. v. Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Comm'n, 2024 IL App (1st) 240519-U - The Progressive Housing decision establishes that investigative reports from administrative agencies—lacking adversarial hearings, impartial adjudication, and explicit finality language—do not constitute reviewable "final administrative decisions" under Illinois law, closing the courthouse door to premature challenges. For family law practitioners, this means GAL recommendations, custody evaluations, and similar third-party reports cannot be collaterally attacked through administrative review; challenges must occur through evidentiary objections and cross-examination within the underlying proceeding itself.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—they just don't know it yet.

When Progressive Housing, Inc. walked into the First District Appellate Court thinking they could challenge an administrative agency's investigative report, they made a fundamental miscalculation. The kind of miscalculation that costs clients time, money, and strategic position. The December 2024 ruling in Progressive Housing, Inc. v. Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission isn't just an administrative law case—it's a masterclass in what happens when litigants fail to understand the difference between an agency doing its job and an agency making a final, reviewable decision.

For high-asset divorce practitioners in Illinois, this case carries implications that extend far beyond guardianship disputes. The court's reasoning on finality, record preservation, and jurisdictional prerequisites applies with equal force when you're dealing with GALs, custody evaluators, forensic accountants, and any quasi-administrative actor whose reports can torpedo your client's position.

The Jurisdictional Trap: Why "Final" Actually Means Something

Progressive Housing wanted to stop the Egyptian Regional Human Rights Authority from publishing an investigative report. They filed in circuit court seeking review. The trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed.

The fatal flaw: the Authority's decision to close an investigation and publish findings does not constitute a "final administrative decision" subject to judicial review.

Illinois law is precise here. The Guardianship and Advocacy Act does not adopt the Administrative Review Law. When no statutory review path exists, common-law certiorari remains available—but only for final administrative actions. The Administrative Review Law defines an "administrative decision" as one that affects legal rights, duties, or privileges and terminates proceedings before the agency.

The appellate court found none of the required elements:


No adversarial hearing occurred
No impartial factfinder rendered a decision
No language indicated a final, appealable determination
Publication of an investigative report—even with opportunity to comment—failed the finality and adjudicatory-function tests


Translation for family law practitioners: if you're challenging a report, evaluation, or recommendation from a non-judicial actor, you must establish that the action is final and adjudicative. Otherwise, the courthouse doors stay closed.

The Record Preservation Failure That Sank the Appeal

Progressive Housing committed a second unforced error that should haunt every litigator: they failed to include the Authority's report in the appellate record.

Under Foutch v. O'Bryant, failure to supply a complete record creates a presumption that the trial court's ruling conformed to law. The appellate court applied this presumption without hesitation.

In high-stakes divorce litigation, this principle operates with brutal efficiency. When your client's financial disclosures, custody evaluations, or forensic analyses aren't properly preserved and transmitted, you're not just inconveniencing the reviewing court—you're handing your opponent a procedural victory they didn't earn.

The lesson is non-negotiable: preserve everything. File everything. Assume the appellate court will use every gap in your record against you.

Strategic Applications for High-Asset Divorce Litigation

The Progressive Housing framework applies directly to family law disputes involving quasi-administrative actors and third-party reports.

Guardian ad Litem Reports

A GAL's recommendation is not a final administrative decision. You cannot seek common-law certiorari to challenge a GAL report before the court acts on it. Your remedy lies in the underlying dissolution proceeding: cross-examination, competing expert testimony, and evidentiary objections. Attempting to collaterally attack a GAL report through administrative review wastes resources and exposes strategic weakness.

Custody Evaluations and Forensic Reports

When a court-appointed evaluator submits findings, those findings become evidence in your case—not a separate administrative action. Challenging the evaluator's methodology, bias, or conclusions happens at trial. Attempting to enjoin publication or seek administrative review before the court rules invites the same jurisdictional dismissal Progressive Housing received.

DCFS Investigations in Custody Disputes

DCFS investigations present a more complex procedural landscape, but the finality principle remains operative. An indicated finding may trigger administrative review rights under the applicable statutory scheme. An unfounded determination or ongoing investigation typically does not. Know the difference before you file.

The Cyber-Legal Intersection: Digital Evidence and Administrative Records

High-net-worth divorce cases increasingly involve digital forensics, electronic discovery, and technology-dependent evidence. The Progressive Housing record-preservation failure carries amplified consequences in this context.

When administrative or quasi-administrative proceedings generate digital records—emails to evaluators, electronic submissions, metadata from forensic analyses—those records must be captured, authenticated, and preserved with the same rigor applied to traditional documents. Failure to do so creates the same Foutch presumption problem that sank Progressive Housing's appeal.

Additionally, when opposing counsel's client has engaged in cyber negligence—unsecured communications with evaluators, spoliation of digital evidence, or manipulation of electronic records—that negligence becomes discovery leverage. The administrative record should reflect any digital irregularities that undermine the opposing party's credibility or the reliability of third-party reports.

Procedural Countermeasures When Administrative Review Is Unavailable

If you cannot obtain common-law certiorari because the agency action lacks finality, alternative remedies exist:

Expedited Injunctive Relief: If publication of a report will cause imminent, irreparable harm—reputational damage, interference with business relationships, or prejudice to pending litigation—seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in the underlying proceeding. You must demonstrate harm that cannot be remedied by money damages and likelihood of success on the merits.

Administrative Reconsideration: Some agencies permit requests for reconsideration or supplementation of investigative findings. Exhaust these options before seeking judicial intervention.

Evidentiary Challenges in the Underlying Case: When an investigative report will be offered as evidence, challenge its admissibility on foundational grounds, hearsay objections, or relevance. The report's existence does not guarantee its admission.

Statutory Rulemaking Relief: In rare circumstances, challenging an agency's procedural rules through rulemaking or declaratory judgment actions may provide relief unavailable through direct review of individual decisions.

Pleading Requirements for Common-Law Certiorari

When common-law certiorari is appropriate, your complaint must establish:


The agency conducted adjudicative proceedings (not merely investigative or advisory functions)
The agency issued an order affecting your client's legal rights, duties, or privileges
The order contains explicit finality or appeal language, or the agency's action otherwise terminates proceedings
No adequate statutory review mechanism exists


Anticipate combined motions under Section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Opposing counsel will attack both the legal sufficiency of your complaint (2-615) and assert affirmative jurisdictional defenses (2-619). Plead jurisdictional and substantive bases with precision.

The Power Dynamic: Controlling the Narrative Before It Controls You

Administrative reports, investigative findings, and third-party evaluations carry disproportionate weight in family court. Judges rely on them. Opposing counsel weaponizes them. Your client's position can deteriorate before trial begins.

The Progressive Housing decision confirms that judicial intervention before finality is generally unavailable. This means your strategic response must occur earlier in the process:


Engage proactively with evaluators and investigators during their proceedings
Submit comprehensive written responses to preliminary findings
Document every procedural irregularity for later impeachment
Preserve all communications and records contemporaneously


Waiting for a final report and then seeking judicial review is a losing strategy. The Progressive Housing court made that clear. Control the narrative during the investigation, or accept the narrative that emerges from it.

Conclusion: Finality Is Not a Technicality

The First District's ruling in Progressive Housing reinforces a principle that sophisticated litigators already understand: courts guard their jurisdiction jealously, and "final" is not a flexible concept. When you challenge an administrative action, you must demonstrate that the action terminated proceedings, affected legal rights, and resulted from an adjudicative process.

In high-asset divorce litigation, this principle governs your approach to every third-party actor whose findings can influence the outcome. Know when judicial review is available. Know when it isn't. And when it isn't, deploy alternative strategies that protect your client's interests without wasting resources on jurisdictionally defective filings.

The opposition is already making mistakes. Make sure you're not making the same ones.



Your assets, your custody rights, and your future are not administrative abstractions. If you're facing a high-stakes divorce involving complex evaluations, third-party reports, or quasi-administrative proceedings, you need counsel who understands both the procedural landscape and the strategic imperatives. Book a consultation now—before the opposition's narrative becomes the court's reality.

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.