In re Marriage of Brosh

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Brosh, No. 5-23-0114, 2025 IL App (5th) 230114-U (5th Dist. Sept. 30, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Donna Brosh. Respondent-Appellant: Kenneth Brosh.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the circuit court’s entry of a two‑year plenary order of protection under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (harassment/stalking by a family member) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Procedural: appellate consideration after an initial summary order was withdrawn to include appellant’s omitted brief arguments (electronic filing issue).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The Fifth District held the circuit court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and upheld the two‑year plenary order of protection. The decision is a Rule 23 non‑precedential disposition.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: factual findings are reviewed for manifest weight; credibility determinations are for the trial court.
- The court credited the trial judge’s assessment that Donna proved harassment and a likelihood of continued harassment absent prohibition. Key facts supporting that finding:
- Repeated, proximate surveillance photographs of Donna’s residence and properties (some showing the respondent’s hand/reflection), taken frequently and within 500 feet of her home.
- Additional indicia of targeting: razor blades embedded in vehicle tires and a cracked windshield during the same timeframe.
- Prior orders of protection and the respondent’s litigation conduct (bringing voluminous photos and pressuring the petitioner to “verify” them in court) increased petitioner’s fear and supported reasonableness of her concerns.
- Appellant’s credibility was damaged by inconsistent testimony and failure to produce alleged third‑party photographers to corroborate his account.
- The trial court reasonably concluded the photographs were not necessary for the asserted legitimate litigation purpose and could support an inference of stalking/harassment.
- Because credibility and reasonableness were resolved against appellant, reversal on manifest‑weight grounds was not warranted.

5. Practice implications
- Challenging orders of protection on appeal is difficult where the trial court makes credibility determinations and there is corroborative circumstantial evidence (surveillance, property tampering, prior OPs).
- Defense strategies: timely present corroborating witnesses/exculpatory evidence at trial; avoid inconsistent testimony; counter inferences of surveillance with concrete alternative explanations or forensic proof; contest proximity/timing relevance.
- Petitioners: preserve and present physical/circumstantial evidence (photos, repair records, police reports), and testify to subjective fear and reasonableness.
- Appellate practice note: verify e‑filing and receipt of briefs; filing glitches can delay appellate resolution. Also, Rule 23 dispositions remain non‑precedential; consider petition for rehearing or further review if broader precedent is sought.