1. Whether the trial court properly found Sonia in indirect civil contempt for failing to refinance the marital home as required by the 2010 dissolution judgment and whether the court’s 60‑day purge condition (refinance, pay off, or list the property) was an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding evidence at the contempt hearing, mischaracterizing or misapplying prior orders (including a uniform order directing part of child support to the mortgage creditor), or denying reimbursement claims.
3. Appellate procedural questions: mootness where the contemnor purged the contempt, preservation of evidentiary and bias claims, completeness of the record (Ill. S. Ct. Rules 323/329), and whether the court may decide the appeal without an appellee’s brief.
The appellate court affirmed. It upheld the trial court’s contempt finding and related orders (including the UOS allocation and a $2,500 attorney‑fee award) because the appeal was largely moot after Sonia paid off the mortgage, many challenges were forfeited for lack of preservation, and the preserved issues lacked merit.
Factual/Procedural Background: The 2010 decree awarded Sonia the marital residence and imposed a refinance obligation; Russell later sought enforcement. The trial court found long‑running noncompliance, imposed a 60‑day purge condition, ordered continued child‑support/mortgage payments through May 18, 2025 (unless earlier refinance), denied Russell’s reimbursement claims, and awarded his fees. Sonia subsequently paid off the mortgage and the trial court acknowledged she had purged contempt.
Mootness & Appellate Disposition: Because the mortgage payoff eliminated the contemnor’s sanction, most appellate claims (including evidentiary complaints) became moot; the court independently assessed jurisdiction and proceeded under First Capitol where appellee briefing was lacking because the record permitted decision.
Preservation & Evidence: Excluded exhibits and documents appended to the appellate brief were not considered because they were not made part of the trial record and Sonia failed to make adequate offers of proof. The certified record is presumed accurate absent correction under Rule 329; omissions not corrected below cannot be supplemented on appeal.
Bias & Record Claims: Judicial‑bias claims were forfeited for inadequate briefing and, on the merits, failed to overcome the presumption of impartiality. Transcript‑completeness objections likewise were not preserved.
- Preserve evidentiary rulings by making contemporaneous offers of proof and ensure all exhibits are in the trial record; correct omissions under Rule 329 before appealing.
- Document and time‑stamp refinance efforts (applications, lender responses) because courts assess sufficiency and timing against specific decree deadlines.
- A contemnor’s compliance with purge terms (e.g., paying off a mortgage) can moot an appeal—seek stays or alternative relief promptly if preservation of the issue is critical.
- When support reductions are tied to creditor payments, draft UOS terms (payee, amount, method, duration, treatment of taxes/insurance, remedies) clearly to avoid enforcement disputes.
Get personalized guidance from an experienced Illinois family law attorney.
Schedule Free Consultation