Kennedy
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
13%
Reversal Rate
75%
Case History
8 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Brozell
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Brozell, 2024 IL App (1st) 232436-U (1st Dist. Oct. 18, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Michelle Brozell n/k/a Michelle Kennedy. Respondent‑Appellant: Eugene Brozell. - Key legal issues 1) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the appellant’s challenge to a November 30, 2023 post‑dissolution order calculating child‑support arrearages; 2) preservation/forfeiture under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (briefing requirements); 3) scope of appeal (limits of the notice of appeal and inability to litigate prior, non‑specified orders). - Holding / outcome Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) • Finality/appealability: The court held the November 30, 2023 order was nonfinal because it continued the case and expressly left further action pending (including possible adverse action if appellant failed to appear). Under Illinois law a judgment is appealable only if final (or if statutory/supreme‑court rule authorizes interlocutory review); absent an express certification that there is “no just reason to delay” (and no other rule permitting the appeal), the order was not appealable (Marsh v. Evangelical Covenant Church principle). • Burden of demonstrating jurisdiction: As appellant, Eugene failed to establish appellate jurisdiction and made no argument supporting it; the court has an independent duty to consider jurisdiction. • Rule 341 noncompliance and forfeiture: Eugene’s pro se brief failed to comply with Rule 341(h)(7) (coherent legal argument, record citations) and attached materials not in the record; those defects forfeited arguments and justified dismissal on discretionary grounds. • Scope of the appeal/notice of appeal limits: The notice identified only the November 30 order; appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider matters not specified in the notice (and Eugene’s brief impermissibly sought review of earlier dissolution and contempt orders). - Practice implications for family law attorneys - Before appealing, confirm the order is final or obtain the required appellate certification (e.g., express finding there is no just reason to delay under Rule 304/Marsh or seek leave under a rule permitting interlocutory review). - Draft the notice of appeal carefully to identify all orders being appealed; issues not specified are forfeited for appellate review. - Comply strictly with Rule 341 briefing requirements: concise, organized arguments with record citations; do not append non‑record documents. - If relief is needed on ongoing enforcement (arrears/contempt), consider moving in the trial court for a final, appealable determination or for clarification/certification before litigating on appeal.
In re Marriage of Rybka
Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Rybka, 2022 IL App (3d) 210561‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 21, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). - Petitioner‑Appellant: Rose Cecili Rybka (now Leach). Respondent‑Appellee: Edward John Rybka. Key legal issues - Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating guardian ad litem (GAL) fees between parents after mother filed to relocate the child. - Whether disgorgement or reallocation could be used to require the other parent to reimburse fees the mother had already paid. Holding / outcome - Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the GAL fees and properly declined to disgorge already‑earned fees. The trial court ordered Edward to pay an additional $4,326.25 (bringing his total contribution to $15,826.25). Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Statutory/standard framework: Trial courts may appoint a GAL in custody/visitation matters and may order fees paid by one or both parents (750 ILCS 5/506). Allocation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Relevant factors include parents’ financial resources, which party precipitated the need for fees, time/effort, novelty/difficulty of issues, customary fees, and benefits to the child (Kennedy; Gibson). - Facts: Mother filed to relocate to Tennessee and sought a GAL; the GAL ultimately recommended relocation but the court denied relocation. GAL fees totaled $29,865; mother had already paid ~$14,038.75; father paid $11,500. Father requested the GAL attend the entire trial (increasing fees). - Court’s analysis: Although father likely earned more, the record did not establish his monthly expenses; mother had substantial assets and had already paid nearly half the fee, indicating ability to pay. The father’s request for the GAL to attend trial was reasonable. Trial judge’s allocation (including refusal to disgorge earned fees) fell within the broad discretion afforded courts. Disgorgement is limited to turning over interim fees/retainers—not to recapture fees already earned and billed. Practice implications for family law attorneys - Preserve and introduce detailed evidence of both parties’ incomes, monthly obligations, liquidity, and prior payments to support a proportional allocation argument. - If seeking reallocation based on another party’s conduct (e.g., insisting GAL attend trial), quantify and document incremental fees tied to that conduct; unsupported estimates are weak. - Do not assume income disparity alone will shift allocation—courts consider ability to pay, prior payments, conduct precipitating fees, and reasonableness of GAL participation. - Understand disgorgement’s limited scope: once fees are earned, courts are unlikely to force reimbursement via disgorgement; seek specific fee allocations or security orders early. - When appointing a GAL, negotiate and memorialize retainer/allocation terms, and seek contemporaneous itemization to aid later fee disputes.
Other 2nd District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Kennedy's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Kennedy has an overall affirm rate of 13% across 8 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Kennedy serve in?
Kennedy serves in the Illinois 2nd District Appellate Court.
How often are Kennedy's decisions reversed on appeal?
Kennedy has a 75% reversal rate, with 6 decisions reversed out of 8 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