In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2024 IL 129155

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2024 IL 129155. Appellant: Masud M. Arjmand. Appellees: Muneeza R. Arjmand; Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, et al.

- Key legal issues
Whether an appellate court has jurisdiction, in an appeal taken under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a), to review earlier trial-court orders denying a petitioner’s substitution/recusal requests (motions under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1001).

- Holding/outcome
Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: it lacked jurisdiction to review the denials of petitioner’s substitution-of-judge petition and motion in conjunction with the Rule 304(a) appeal. The appellate court’s judgment (that portion) was affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The Illinois Constitution vests appellate jurisdiction in final judgments unless the Supreme Court’s rules provide otherwise. Rule 304(a) allows immediate appeal only from a final judgment as to fewer than all parties/claims where the trial court expressly finds “no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal.” The Court treated Rule 304(a) as procedural and constraining interlocutory appeals; it does not expand appellate jurisdiction to reach collateral interlocutory orders like denials of substitution. The court rejected reliance on out‑of‑district Fourth District authority (Sarah Bush Lincoln v. Berlin) that had allowed such review; that authority was nonbinding and conflicted with Second District precedent (In re Marriage of Nettleton) and the plain limits of Rule 304(a). Consequently, because denials of substitution/recusal are interlocutory and not made independently appealable by Rule 304(a), the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider them on the Rule 304(a) appeal (even though other aspects of the case were reviewable on appeal).

- Practice implications for litigators
- Do not expect interlocutory review of denials of substitution/recusal via a Rule 304(a) appeal; those rulings are preserved for review only on appeal from a final judgment (or by other extraordinary relief).
- Preserve a full record on substitution/recusal motions and related rulings for review on final appeal.
- If immediate relief is essential, consider alternative procedural avenues (e.g., petition for supervisory or extraordinary relief in the Supreme Court), recognizing those are exceptional and discretionary.
- Be aware that intra‑district precedents may conflict; the Supreme Court’s decision resolves such a split, limiting piecemeal collateral appeals in dissolution and related proceedings.