In re Marriage of Cox

Overview

This appeal arises from post-dissolution child support modification proceedings in In re Marriage of Cox. The First District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a petition for attorney fees remained pending when the notice of appeal was filed, and the circuit court's October 2024 order lacked a Rule 304(a) finding. The court left open the possibility of rehearing if the appellant supplements the record showing the fee petition has been resolved.

Key Facts

• Parties divorced in 2020 with three minor children; dissolution judgment included child support obligations and annual "true-up" provisions
• Respondent relocated to Michigan with children in 2021; petitioner relocated to Georgia
• In 2024, respondent filed motion to modify child support in Cook County despite all parties residing out of state
• Circuit court granted modification, found petitioner in contempt, and entered judgment of $9,443.07 against petitioner
• Respondent filed petition for $5,010 in attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(a) and (b)
• Petitioner filed notice of appeal while fee petition remained unresolved

Procedural History

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Domestic Relations Division (Case No. 2018 D 10858), Judge Geri Pinzur Rosenberg presiding. First District Appellate Court, Third Division. The circuit court entered judgment modifying child support on October 17, 2024. Petitioner filed notice of appeal on November 18, 2024, while respondent's attorney fee petition (filed November 7, 2024) remained pending.

Holdings

1. Primary Holding: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a), when multiple claims remain pending, an order disposing of fewer than all claims is not appealable absent an express written finding of no just reason to delay appeal. The pending fee petition rendered the October 2024 order non-final.
2. Secondary Holding: Rule 304(b)(6), which permits appeals from custody/parental responsibilities modifications without Rule 304(a) findings, does not apply to child support modifications.

Legal Principles

• Ill. S. Ct. R. 301: Appellate jurisdiction generally limited to final judgments
• Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a): Appeals from orders disposing of fewer than all claims require express finding of no just reason to delay
• Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(6): Custody/parental responsibilities modifications appealable without 304(a) finding—but inapplicable to child support
• Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(2): Premature notice of appeal becomes effective when final claim resolved
• In re Marriage of Crecos, 2021 IL 126192: Unrelated post-dissolution matters constitute separate claims requiring 304(a) findings
• 750 ILCS 5/508(a), (b): Attorney fee petitions in dissolution proceedings

Practical Implications

• Always check for pending fee petitions before filing notice of appeal from post-dissolution orders; request Rule 304(a) language if fees remain unresolved
• Distinguish child support from parental responsibilities: Rule 304(b)(6) only applies to custody/allocation matters, not support modifications
• Salvage premature appeals: Under Rule 303(a)(2), a premature notice of appeal becomes effective upon resolution of all pending claims—file petition for rehearing with supplemental record
• Pro se litigants: This case illustrates common jurisdictional pitfalls; practitioners should counsel clients on proper appeal timing
• Jurisdiction arguments: Even when not raised by parties, appellate courts must sua sponte examine jurisdiction

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order with limited precedential value under Rule 23(e)(1). The substantive issues petitioner raised—including whether Illinois retained jurisdiction over child support when all parties left the state and enforcement of true-up provisions—were never reached on the merits. The court's discussion of Rule 303(a)(2) as a potential remedy is dicta, though it provides useful guidance for practitioners facing similar procedural situations.