Moore v. Moore

Overview

Brandon Moore appealed pro se from an indirect civil contempt finding for nonpayment of child support and child-related expenses, which allowed him to purge by paying $1,000 by a set date, with a status hearing to follow. The First District held that because no sanction was actually imposed — the commitment was stayed and the purge was continued for status — the order was not final and appealable. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Facts

Parties married 2014, two minor children; dissolution petition filed September 2022.

October 23, 2023 judgment for dissolution incorporated a marital settlement agreement requiring Moore to pay $1,700 monthly child support, 55% of uncovered medical expenses, 55% of extracurricular (capped at $4,000 annually per party), educational, and childcare expenses.

Moore reported unemployment beginning May 9, 2024; support was modified October 2, 2024 to $845 per month plus 55% of uncovered medical expenses.

Ashley filed multiple pro se and counseled petitions for rule to show cause and indirect civil contempt, culminating in a May 2025 amended petition alleging $4,225 in unpaid child support, $7,584.48 in extracurricular expenses, and $1,754.47 in medical expenses.

July 15, 2025: court found Moore in contempt for willful noncompliance, found an arrearage of $15,253.95, stayed commitment until August 15, 2025, allowed purge by paying $1,000, and set status on the purge for August 18, 2025.

Moore appealed July 29, 2025; on August 18, 2025, the trial court further stayed commitment to October 9, 2025 and extended the purge deadline.

The record on appeal contained only the common law record — no transcript or bystander's report — and the appeal proceeded on appellant's brief only.

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Cook County, Domestic Relations (No. 22 D 7335), Judge Abbey Fishman Romanek. Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Fifth Division, taken on the record and appellant's brief only. Appeal dismissed.

Holdings

A contempt order that allows a purge but stays commitment and continues the purge for status imposes no sanction and is therefore not a final, appealable order ; the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss. Jurisdiction is considered sua sponte as a question of law.

A retroactive child support purge is not a "penalty" under Rule 304(b)(5) because it merely orders payment of a sum already owed and creates no new liability ( Schweiger ; Fidelity Financial Services ).

Because the contempt finding was not a final judgment, a section 2-1401 petition to vacate it cannot proceed.

Alternative basis noted: failure to provide a report of proceedings ( Foutch ) and a brief violating Rule 341(h)(7) would support forfeiture/affirmance, but dismissal was required on jurisdictional grounds.

Legal Principles

Ill. S. Ct. R. 301 — every final judgment in a civil case is appealable as of right; Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5) — contempt orders imposing a monetary or other penalty are appealable without a Rule 304(a) finding.

Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) — noncompliant arguments may be rejected outright ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanders , 2015 IL App (1st) 141272, ¶ 43).

735 ILCS 5/2-1401 — relief from final orders and judgments only.

In re Marriage of Gutman , 232 Ill. 2d 145, 152-53 (2008); In re Marriage of Sanchez and Sanchez-Ortega , 2018 IL App (1st) 171075; In re Marriage of Schweiger , 379 Ill. App. 3d 687 (2008); Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. v. Hicks , 267 Ill. App. 3d 887 (1994); Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984); Marx Transport, Inc. v. Air Express International Corp. , 379 Ill. App. 3d 849 (2008); Ontiveroz v. Khokhar , 2025 IL 130316.

Practical Implications

Do not appeal a contempt finding until a sanction is actually imposed — a stayed commitment with an open purge window and a status date is nonfinal.

Where the purge equals support arrearages already owed, expect the court to hold it is not a "penalty" triggering Rule 304(b)(5) appealability; wait for the body attachment/commitment to issue.

Do not file a section 2-1401 petition to attack an interlocutory contempt finding; use a motion to reconsider or present inability-to-pay evidence at the purge status hearing.

Always secure a transcript or Rule 323 bystander's report; without it, Foutch presumes the trial court acted correctly — fatal to a claim that a purge amount is "unsupported by the record."

Counterpoint for contemnors: a contempt order that actually imposes a fine or commits the contemnor is immediately appealable, and the ability-to-pay/purge argument should be preserved in the record below.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23(e) order and is not precedential except in limited circumstances. The discussion of Rule 341(h)(7) forfeiture and Foutch presumptions is alternative reasoning/dicta; the binding basis for disposition is the lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court did not reach the merits of Moore's ability-to-pay or due process arguments.