In re Marriage of Groh

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Groh, No. 2-25-0319, 2025 IL App (2d) 250319-U (Order filed Nov. 17, 2025) (Rule 23(b) non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Randy Groh. Respondent-Appellee: Lisa Groh. (DeKalb County Circuit Court case(s) consolidated; appeal from order granting Lisa exclusive possession of the marital residence after Randy was found in indirect civil contempt.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether removal of vehicles and other items from the marital property violated an agreed December 3, 2024 order enjoining both parties from removing, concealing, or disposing of property.
- Whether the trial court properly found Randy in indirect civil contempt and imposed coercive sanctions (exclusive possession of the home) when he failed to purge the contempt.
- What defenses (third‑party ownership, county code violations) are sufficient to avoid contempt under an agreed injunction.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. Randy was properly found in indirect civil contempt for violating the agreed order. Because he did not return the removed property and thus could not purge the contempt, the trial court’s sanction—awarding exclusive possession of the marital residence to Lisa—was affirmed.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The trial court found Lisa established a prima facie case of contempt; the burden then shifted to Randy to justify his conduct.
- Randy’s defenses—he claimed several vehicles belonged to third parties and that county zoning enforcement forced him to “clean up” the property—did not excuse noncompliance with the court’s injunction. The court emphasized that, under the December 3 agreed order, any removal required prior court modification or relief; absent that, removal constituted violation.
- The court treated the contempt as civil (coercive). Randy was given opportunity to respond and to purge by returning the items, but he failed to do so. Because the purge condition was not met, the trial court’s coercive sanction (exclusive possession) was an appropriate remedy to compel compliance and protect the property status quo.

5) Practice implications (brief, actionable)
- Draft agreed preservation orders with specificity: define “property,” address stored third‑party property, set a clear procedure for emergency removals, and require notice/motion before any removal.
- If opposing removal, promptly file a rule to show cause and seek immediate injunctive relief; preserve the record (include all petitions, orders, docket entries).
- If storing third‑party property, obtain and keep written documentation (titles, bills of sale, express written storage agreements) and be prepared to produce them at contempt proceedings.
- If county code enforcement threatens fines, move immediately to court for modification rather than self‑help removals. Failure to comply with preservation orders can result in loss of residence possession as a coercive sanction.
- Note: decision is Rule 23(b) non‑precedential; treat it for persuasive value and practical guidance rather than binding authority.