Hutchinson
Key Insights
Reversal Rate
86%
Case History
7 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Wheelock
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Wheelock, 2024 IL App (2d) 230459‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. June 25, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Moira L. Wheelock. Respondent‑Appellant: David P. Wheelock. - Key legal issues Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a post‑dissolution order directing entry of an amended qualified Illinois domestic relations order (QILDRO) where the QILDRO had not yet been entered; i.e., whether the trial court’s July 6, 2023 order was a final, appealable judgment under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303. - Holding/outcome Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The majority held the trial court’s order was nonfinal because it expressly called for entry of an amended QILDRO that had not yet been filed. Justice Hutchinson dissented (would have found the order final). - Significant legal reasoning The court relied on Rule 303’s final‑order requirement and Illinois authority (In re Marriage of Petraitis) holding that when a QDRO/QILDRO has not been entered, distribution of pension assets remains unresolved and the trial court retains jurisdiction. Because nothing had been filed implementing the July 6 directive (the amended QILDRO), the judgment did not dispose of the parties’ rights as to that separate part of the controversy and the notice of appeal was premature. The majority distinguished dicta in In re Marriage of Platt and rejected the dissent’s view that QILDRO entry is merely ministerial and does not affect finality. The opinion notes procedural alternatives — once the amended QILDRO is entered, a timely appeal may be filed; or, if necessary, a party may move to preserve the present notice by petitioning for rehearing and supplementing the record (citing In re Marriage of Knoerr). - Practice implications (concise) - Do not appeal until the QILDRO/QDRO called for by the decree has been entered; absence of a QILDRO can render an appeal premature. - Promptly seek entry of the QILDRO or an express final adjudication resolving pension rights to create appellate jurisdiction. - If a party files a notice of appeal before the QILDRO is entered, preserve alternatives (petition for rehearing/supplement record under Rule 303 procedures) to relate the notice to the later‑filed implementing order. - Because this is a Rule 23 nonprecedential disposition, weigh its persuasive value against conflicting authority (including the dissent’s reliance on Wilson (Ohio) and arguments treating QILDROs as ministerial).
In re Marriage of Heinrich
1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Heinrich, 2014 IL App (2d) 121333 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Mar. 19, 2014). - Petitioner/Counterrespondent: Mary Lee Heinrich. Respondent/Counterpetitioner: Paul Heinrich. 2. Key legal issues - Whether a premarital agreement clause that bars recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs is enforceable with respect to child-related issues (custody, visitation, support). - Whether the trial court erred in declaring the premarital agreement valid and enforceable in its entirety. - Procedural issue: denial of a 17‑month-later motion to reconsider. 3. Holding / outcome - The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded. - It held that the premarital agreement’s blanket ban on attorneys’ fees is unenforceable as to child-related issues because it violates Illinois public policy. - The remainder of the premarital agreement was preserved and enforceable under its severability clause. (Justice Hutchinson dissented.) 4. Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Public-policy protection of children’s welfare and statutory rights (including the court’s parens patriae role and child‑support enforcement mechanisms) precludes private contract provisions that would effectively deter or prevent a parent from seeking judicial relief on child custody/support issues. A provision that bars fee recovery for child-related litigation can operate to chill legitimate court access and impede statutory protections, and therefore cannot be enforced to the extent it covers child issues. - Because the agreement contained a severability clause, the offensive portion (the fee-shifting ban as applied to child issues) could be severed without voiding the entire agreement. The court therefore enforced the remaining contractual provisions. - The opinion follows the general principle (recognized in prior Illinois cases) that parties cannot contract away the court’s authority or a child’s substantive statutory protections. The court also treated arbitration and choice-of-law provisions as subordinate to public-policy limits for child matters. 5. Practice implications for family law attorneys - Prenuptial agreements should not include blanket waivers that would bar recovery of fees or otherwise discourage litigation over custody, support, or other child‑related matters — such clauses may be unenforceable. - Include explicit carve-outs preserving the right to seek fees and court intervention for child-related claims, or limit fee waivers to purely financial/property aspects. - Always include a severability clause; it can preserve the enforceability of acceptable provisions if a court strikes an offensive term. - Choice-of-law or arbitration clauses cannot insulate provisions that conflict with Illinois public policy regarding children. - When litigating premarital agreements, raise public-policy issues early; appellate courts will separate offending terms rather than invalidate entire agreements.
Other 2nd District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Hutchinson's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Hutchinson has an overall affirm rate of 0% across 7 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Hutchinson serve in?
Hutchinson serves in the Illinois 2nd District Appellate Court.
How often are Hutchinson's decisions reversed on appeal?
Hutchinson 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