In re Marriage of Berry, 2019 IL App (1st) 181774-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Berry, 2019 IL App (1st) 181774-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 20, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Michele Berry. Respondent-Appellant (pro se): Michael Berry. Appeal challenges a July 27, 2018 circuit-court order requiring Michael to execute a quitclaim deed of Texas marital property to Michele and to facilitate sale/escrow of proceeds.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the Illinois circuit court had personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction over the respondent regarding division/escrow of a Texas marital residence.
- Procedural adequacy of appellant’s appeal (proper route for interlocutory appeal; compliance with appellate briefing rules).
- Whether the July 27, 2018 order was void for lack of jurisdiction (appellant alleged “external fraud”).

3. Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the Illinois circuit court had both personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction and rejected appellant’s attack on the entire divorce proceeding. The July 27, 2018 order was upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Appellate review: de novo on questions of personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction. A void order can be attacked anytime, but here the record showed proper service (respondent served July 8, 2014), establishing personal jurisdiction; divorce matters fall within circuit-court subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- Procedural defects: appellant mischaracterized the appeal as a Rule 308 interlocutory appeal without following Rule 308’s certification/leave requirements and failed to brief the specific order challenged. He also failed to comply with Rules 341/342 (jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, appendix). The court found many arguments forfeited (points not argued are forfeited).
- The court proceeded on appellant’s brief only (allowed where record is simple), but nonetheless concluded jurisdictional attack lacked merit.

5. Practice implications (for family-law practitioners)
- Preserve and specifically brief jurisdictional challenges early and contemporaneously; if arguing an order is void, supply record proof of defective service or other fatal jurisdictional defect.
- Comply strictly with appellate rules (Rules 303, 308, 341, 342): identify the order appealed, use correct interlocutory-appeal procedures or seek leave, and include required appendix and factual statements to avoid forfeiture.
- When dealing with out‑of‑state real property in a divorce, document service and connection to the forum and obtain clear orders (and, if necessary, express certification) governing transfer/escrow to reduce collateral challenges.
- Pro se opponents: courts will enforce briefing/formalities and may affirm on procedural and substantive grounds when service and jurisdiction are established.