Cates
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
14%
Reversal Rate
86%
Case History
7 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Davis
1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Davis, 2023 IL App (5th) 210410‑U. - Petitioner‑Appellee: Carol A. Davis. Respondent‑Appellant: William D. Davis. (Fifth District; judgment filed Apr. 10, 2023; Justice Welch delivered the judgment; Justice Cates dissented.) 2. Key legal issues - Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by dismissing the respondent’s petition to modify/terminate maintenance as a discovery sanction. - Whether the sanction was imposed sua sponte or in response to a motion for sanctions. - Whether the court’s sanction order satisfied Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002) and contained adequate specificity. - Whether the court’s finding that the respondent’s discovery conduct was sanctionable was proper where counsel (not the client) was primarily responsible for delays. 3. Holding / outcome - Affirmed. The appellate court held the dismissal sanction was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court acted on the petitioner’s motion (not sua sponte), its ruling met Rule 219(c) specificity requirements, and the record supported a finding of sanctionable discovery conduct warranting dismissal of the respondent’s petition. 4. Significant legal reasoning - The court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard to discovery sanctions and emphasized trial courts’ broad latitude to enforce discovery rules. The record showed prolonged, repeated discovery failures over more than two years (failure to comply with an order to compel, late/deficient responses, disputes over subpoenas and privilege logs, multiple hearings and continuances). - The appellate court rejected the appellant’s contention that the sanction was improper because delays were attributable to his counsel, noting counsel’s failures may be imputed to the client and do not preclude sanctions where the record demonstrates systemic noncompliance. - The court found the sanction was entered in response to the petitioner’s motion for sanctions, not sua sponte, and that the trial court’s docket entries and orders furnished sufficient factual findings to satisfy Rule 219(c). 5. Practice implications - Courts will impose severe sanctions, including dismissal of relief‑seeking pleadings, for persistent discovery noncompliance—even when blame is placed on counsel. - Counsel must monitor and comply with discovery orders, promptly cure deficiencies, and preserve a detailed record of efforts to comply; reliance on inadvertent calendaring or paralegal error is a weak defense. - When facing discovery sanctions, move promptly to show compliance, present evidence excusing delay, and seek relief under the appropriate procedural mechanisms; appellate relief is limited absent clear abuse of discretion. - Use clear, timely privilege logs and protective orders when third‑party subpoenas are involved, and litigate quash/compel issues early to avoid cumulative sanctions risk.
In re Marriage of Krilich
1) Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Krilich, 2023 IL App (1st) 221198 (1st Dist., First Div.), No. 1‑22‑1198 (filed Mar. 6, 2023; modified Apr. 24, 2023). Judgment affirmed. - Petitioners/Appellees: Sandra Schnakenburg (executor of Lillian Krilich’s estate) and the Krilich children. Respondents/Appellants: Donna J. Krilich and Walter L. Morgan (named co‑personal representatives of decedent Robert R. Krilich’s estate). 2) Key legal issues - Whether an Illinois circuit court has subject‑matter jurisdiction to enforce a 1985 Illinois dissolution judgment (which retained jurisdiction) against the estate of a deceased former spouse domiciled in Florida. - Whether Illinois courts have personal jurisdiction over non‑resident estate representatives (appellants) named in a Cook County enforcement action. - Interaction between enforcement of a domestic‑relations judgment and parallel probate/estate administration in a foreign state. 3) Holding/outcome - The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss. Illinois courts retain jurisdiction to enforce their dissolution judgments even after the obligor’s death and despite the obligor’s foreign domicile; dismissal for lack of personal or subject‑matter jurisdiction was improper on the record before the court. 4) Significant legal reasoning - The court relied principally on Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291 (2000): where a dissolution judgment expressly retains jurisdiction, the domestic court has inherent equitable power to enforce its orders (including against an estate) and death does not render the remedy unavailable. - The court distinguished Keats v. Cates (1968) — which limited interstate interference with foreign probate where jurisdiction rested only on a contract to make a will — because here the relief is enforcement of a court judgment (not merely contract) that expressly preserved the court’s power. - Petitioners alleged specific Illinois contacts (Illinois corporations/LLCs and Illinois real property tied to the decedent) sufficient to raise factual issues about the situs of estate assets and to support proceeding in Illinois; the action was brought against the estate (through its Illinois‑named representatives), not the individuals in their private capacities. - Because the trial court retained jurisdiction and factual disputes existed, dismissal at the pleading stage was inappropriate. 5) Practice implications - Enforcement: Practitioners seeking post‑death enforcement of marital settlement provisions should invoke the dissolution judgment’s retained‑jurisdiction language and Smithberg’s equitable authority. - Defense: Estate representatives should promptly develop the factual record on situs of assets and move for a stay or coordinate with foreign probate courts; Keats remains relevant where the claim is purely contractual/probate‑based without a preserved judicial enforcement right. - Drafting: Divorce decrees should explicitly retain jurisdiction and describe testator obligations; wills/estate planners should be mindful that noncompliant wills may be challenged in the forum that issued the divorce judgment. - Procedure: Use Rule 306 interlocutory review carefully — denial of a jurisdictional dismissal is appealable, but appellate courts focus on whether factual allegations raise triable jurisdictional issues.
Other 5th District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Cates's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Cates has an overall affirm rate of 14% across 7 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Cates serve in?
Cates serves in the Illinois 5th District Appellate Court.
How often are Cates's decisions reversed on appeal?
Cates has a 86% reversal rate, with 6 decisions reversed out of 7 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