In re Marriage of May

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of May, 2025 IL App (5th) 241179-U. Petitioner-Appellee: William D. May Jr.; Respondent-Appellant: Amy May.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court may review the trial court’s post-dissolution pension allocation order.
- Whether the trial court erred by (a) failing to specify the method/period for pension apportionment in light of the marital settlement agreement (MSA) and (b) issuing the order without an evidentiary hearing on valuation/QDRO matters.

3. Holding/outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Fifth District concluded the trial court’s docket entry resolving the pension issue did not dispose of Amy’s pending petition for rule to show cause, so no final, appealable order existed (and no Rule 304(a) certification was entered).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Finality requirement: The court applied Illinois appellate jurisdiction principles—only final orders (or orders meeting the narrow Rule 304 exceptions) are appealable (citing Illinois Supreme Court rules and related precedent).
- Procedural posture controlled: Although the trial court’s August 29, 2024 entry decided the pension period (award limited to marriage date through dissolution), the record contained an unresolved petition for rule to show cause (filed April 2, 2024). Because that petition was not expressly granted or denied, the court declined jurisdiction. The panel relied on Supreme Court precedent (In re Marriage of Gutman and other authority) holding that an unresolved contempt/rule-to-show-cause petition prevents a final appealable order absent Rule 304(a) language.
- Appellate courts must consider jurisdiction sua sponte; dismissal is mandatory where finality is lacking.

5. Practice implications (concise, for counsel)
- Ensure finality before appealing: obtain an order that explicitly disposes of all pending post‑judgment motions/claims (including rule-to-show-cause/contempt petitions), or request Rule 304(a) written findings permitting an immediate appeal.
- When litigating pension/QDRO issues post-dissolution, secure a clear, signed order specifying (a) the marital portion, (b) valuation period/method, and (c) whether the petition for rule to show cause is granted/denied.
- If the trial court issues a docket entry or interim ruling, move for a clarifying written order or rehearing to preserve appellate jurisdiction.
- Where the valuation or entitlement is disputed, request an evidentiary hearing and make a record on contested factual issues (contributions, post-dissolution enhancements, QDRO specifics).