In re Marriage of Bedard

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bedard, No. 1-23-2280, 2024 IL App (1st) 232280-U (6th Div. Sept. 30, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Matthew Bedard; Respondent-Appellee: Solange Fingal Bedard; Appellant: Lori M. Succes (former counsel for Solange).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the circuit court properly imposed personal sanctions against counsel under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) for filing duplicative/meritless pleadings and engaging in abusive litigation conduct.
2. Whether counsel received constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard as to all alleged sanctionable conduct the court ultimately punished.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the sanctions to the extent they related to claims actually set for hearing and fairly litigated, but vacated those portions of the sanctions that rested on conduct that was never listed on the hearing docket (and thus for which counsel lacked adequate notice). The matter was remanded consistent with that division of the sanctions. (Order filed under Rule 23; not precedential except as allowed by rule.)

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court reviewed the procedural history: multiple emergency and non-emergency filings by respondent via Succes, motions for sanctions by Matthew, and scheduling/continuance orders. A March 24, 2023 continuance order listed specific pleadings to be heard on June dates; it did not include certain earlier sanctions requests (December 22 and January 19 motions).
- Due process requires counsel receive notice of the matters set for hearing so she can prepare and respond. Although Succes appeared at the June 6 hearing and argued (and at times said she was unprepared), she had not been given specific notice that some sanction allegations would be adjudicated that day. The court therefore erred by sanctioning for the entirety of alleged conduct—including items not included on the hearing list—without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on those particular allegations.
- For the issues that were properly noticed and litigated, the appellate court found sufficient record support to uphold sanctions for duplicative/meritless filings and abusive rhetoric.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve objections: if a court addresses issues not listed on the hearing docket, promptly object on notice-due-process grounds to preserve appellate review.
- Watch scheduling orders: carefully confirm the written list of matters continued/renoticed and prepare based on that list.
- Limit emergency and duplicative filings to avoid 508(b) exposure; aggressive or personal rhetoric can support personal sanctions.
- If sanctioned, appellate relief may be available where the sanctioning order lacks adequate notice or opportunity to be heard—even if portions of the sanctions are upheld where proper notice and record support exist.