In re Marriage of Bibber

In re Marriage of Bibber, 2024 IL App (2d) 220221-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. May 30, 2024) (Rule 23(b) — non‑precedential)

Parties
- Petitioner‑Appellant: John Walter Bibber
- Respondent‑Appellee: Katherine Harbeck Bibber

Key legal issues
- Procedural: adequacy and admissibility of bystander’s reports / “reconstructed” or supplemental findings when no verbatim transcript exists; whether a supplemental bystander’s report may be submitted without the parties’ stipulation.
- Substantive (preservation/standard): whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to terminate/modify maintenance and in striking/dismissing his amended motion to reconsider under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1203 (reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence or change in law).

Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court (2d Dist.) struck the supplemental bystander’s report because the parties did not stipulate to it. Because the properly submitted bystander’s report did not contain the trial court’s impounded oral findings, the court presumed those unrecorded findings supported the trial court’s denials of both (1) the petition to terminate/modify maintenance and (2) the section 2‑1203 motion to reconsider.

Significant legal reasoning
- Record requirement and presumption of supporting findings: When no verbatim transcript is in the record, an appellant must supply an agreed statement or a proper bystander’s report to show what occurred. If the record lacks the trial court’s findings (e.g., impounded oral findings not in the record), appellate courts will presume the trial court made findings that support its orders.
- Bystander’s report / reconstructed findings: A supplemental or reconstructed bystander’s report cannot be injected unilaterally; the parties’ agreement/stipulation and proper certification are required. The unsigned, unclerked “Bibber Decision” document offered by appellant was not a substitute for authenticated findings filed by the court.
- Section 2‑1203 standard: Reconsideration is limited to changed law or newly discovered evidence that existed at the time of the decision but was unavailable despite due diligence. The court did not need to reach the merits (e.g., DES reversal of unemployment benefits) because the record did not show error and the presumption supported the lower court’s rulings.

Practice implications (practical takeaways for family law practitioners)
- Preserve the record: obtain a verbatim transcript or secure an agreed statement/bystander’s report promptly after hearing. If the judge announces impounded oral findings, request contemporaneous written findings or an order directing the clerk to file reconstructed findings.
- Authenticate reconstructed findings: avoid relying on unsigned, unfiled “reconstructions” in the record — obtain the court’s signature/filing or a stipulation by the parties.
- When seeking reconsideration under §2‑1203, prepare to prove the evidence was “newly discovered” (existed at decision time and could not have been found with due diligence); post‑decision developments (e.g., later agency reversals) may not suffice.
- If the trial court’s reasons are impounded, move promptly for written findings to avoid the presumption that the denial was supported.