Burke
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
42%
Reversal Rate
58%
Case History
19 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Horlbeck
1. Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Horlbeck, 2023 IL App (2d) 210351‑U (2d Dist. Sept. 6, 2023). Petitioner‑Appellee: Todd Horlbeck. Respondent‑Appellant: Laura Horlbeck. 2. Key legal issues - Whether two homes (a Wisconsin vacation home and the St. Charles marital residence) were marital or non‑marital property after a 2009 deed transfer to wife. - Whether attorney’s fees incurred in business/bankruptcy litigation (specifically $185,000 paid to attorney John Burke) constitute marital debt payable from marital assets. - Whether Todd should be judicially estopped from claiming marital interests in the properties because he did not list them on his 2015 Chapter 7 bankruptcy schedules. - Evidentiary posture: appellate review on a record largely consisting of a certified bystander’s report and stipulated exhibits. 3. Holding / outcome The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The trial court’s findings that both homes were marital property and that Burke’s attorney’s fees were marital debt were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s denial of Laura’s motion for partial summary judgment (judicial estoppel) was affirmed. 4. Significant legal reasoning - Credibility and weight determinations were for the trial court: it found that both properties were purchased with marital funds and, despite deed transfers in 2009 for estate planning, the transfers were not intended as gifts and the parties treated the assets as jointly owned. Those credibility findings supported classifying the homes as marital. - The court considered that funds from the Wisconsin sale were used for family maintenance and child support, reinforcing marital character and equitable division. The St. Charles home (no mortgage) was ordered sold with specific allocations (children’s trust, attorney fees including $185,000 to Burke, a modest award to Todd, remainder to Laura). - On judicial estoppel, the court rejected automatic application: the bankruptcy nondisclosure did not conclusively bar Todd because the parties disputed whether he had an ownership interest to disclose and because the marital interest theory was tied to dissolution timing (the court referenced section 750(e) of the Marriage Act). The bankruptcy trustee’s awareness and counsel guidance also undercut estoppel. - Appellate review emphasized manifest‑weight standard and limited record (bystander’s report and stipulated exhibits). 5. Practice implications - Transfers to a spouse for “estate planning” can be reclassified as marital if purchased with marital funds and evidence shows no donative intent—document intent and counsel advice when making interspousal transfers. - Judicial estoppel in family cases requires clear, inconsistent prior sworn positions and prejudice; mere omission from bankruptcy schedules may not suffice where ownership/vested interest is contested. - Preserve a full trial transcript; reliance on a bystander’s report limits appellate argument. - Trial courts have wide discretion to treat attorney fees paid from marital funds (including business‑litigation fees) as marital debt; litigants should trace expenditures and argue necessity/reasonableness.
In re Marriage of Rymma B.
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Rymma B., 2021 IL App (1st) 201400-U (1st Dist. June 16, 2021) (Order filed under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 23). Petitioner-Appellant: Rymma B.; Respondent-Appellee: Samvel S. (Third Division; Justices Burke, McBride, Ellis). - Key legal issues 1. Whether the appellate court could provide relief from a circuit court’s temporary custody/education order that directed the parties’ child to attend in‑person school in Michigan for a limited semester during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. Whether the appeal was justiciable or moot once the challenged temporary order expired. 3. Related procedural issues: guardian ad litem recommendations, alleged violation of allocation judgment, and whether a relocation issue was being litigated properly. - Holding/outcome The First District dismissed the appeal as moot because the temporary circuit-court order being appealed had expired and the appellate court could not grant effectual relief. No exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The Rule 23 order is non‑precedential except as permitted by that rule. - Significant legal reasoning The court’s sole dispositive analysis was mootness: the temporary order at issue covered a defined time frame (a school semester running to June 4, 2021). By the time appellate review proceeded, the term had ended and there was no live controversy—therefore appellate relief would be purely advisory and unavailable. The panel considered, but rejected, application of mootness exceptions (e.g., capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review/public‑importance), concluding they did not justify retention of the matter. The opinion relies on basic mootness principles—an appellant must demonstrate a live, redressable controversy to obtain appellate relief. - Practice implications (concise) - Time‑limited orders (school terms, emergency temporary custody) can become moot quickly; counsel must act promptly to secure appellate review (seek emergency/expedited briefing and oral argument or temporary injunctive relief). - When seeking or opposing temporary relocation/schooling orders, preserve the record on best‑interest factors and on reasons why the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review if you anticipate an appeal. - If a party contends a relocation is occurring, follow relocation petition procedures; temporary schooling orders should be clearly characterized to avoid conversion to de facto relocation. - Guardian ad litem reports can be outcome‑determinative in temporary emergency proceedings—develop or challenge factual findings thoroughly at the trial level. - Remember Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential; citeable with caution. (Approx. 360 words)
Other Supreme District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Burke's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Burke has an overall affirm rate of 42% across 19 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Burke serve in?
Burke serves in the Illinois Supreme District Appellate Court.
How often are Burke's decisions reversed on appeal?
Burke has a 58% reversal rate, with 11 decisions reversed out of 19 total cases.
Need Strategic Insights for Your Appeal?
Get deeper analytics, outcome forecasts, and compare judges side-by-side with a Professional subscription.
Upgrade to Professional