In re Marriage of Bonner, 2019 IL App (1st) 182717-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bonner, No. 1-18-2717, 2019 IL App (1st) 182717-U (Oct. 31, 2019) (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Rule 23 order). Petitioner/Cross‑Respondent: Tanya Bonner. Respondent/Cross‑Petitioner/Appellant: Anthony Bonner.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether post‑judgment motions seeking a different disposition of marital property may be entertained after a default divorce judgment that already disposed of property.
2. Whether the circuit court properly dismissed those motions under section 2‑619(a)(4) (claim barred by prior judgment) and section 2‑615 (failure to state a claim).
3. Whether sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 were appropriate for repetitive, frivolous filings intended to harass.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court correctly dismissed Anthony’s “Motion for Final Disposition of Marital and Joint Property” (filed years after a default dissolution and property disposition) and properly imposed Rule 137 sanctions against him for frivolous, harassing filings. (Order is non‑precedential under Rule 23.)

- Significant legal reasoning
- The original August 2014 default judgment adjudicated dissolution and made a final property disposition after Anthony defaulted by failing to appear. That judgment barred later attempts to relitigate the same property claims.
- The court dismissed Anthony’s later motions under section 2‑619(a)(4) because they were “barred by the August 2014 judgment” (claim preclusion effect of a final disposition). It also found the pleadings legally insufficient under section 2‑615 because they rehashed irrelevant allegations and failed to state a viable legal basis for relief.
- The trial court applied laches and noted factual circumstances (long delay, prior partial payment by Tanya toward the disputed vehicle) supporting the conclusion that Anthony’s filings were untimely and intended to re‑open settled matters.
- Under Rule 137 the court found the filings not well‑grounded in fact or law and brought to harass, justifying sanctions (the opinion affirms the trial court’s imposition; specific sanction amounts are not detailed in the Rule 23 order).

- Practice implications
- Post‑judgment challenges to property awarded in a final divorce judgment are vulnerable to 2‑619(a)(4) dismissal: litigants must pursue timely relief (e.g., timely set‑aside/default relief) rather than late collateral motions.
- Repetitive or recycled claims that ignore prior final orders expose the filer to Rule 137 sanctions; counsel should consider sanctions motions when faced with serial, meritless post‑judgment pleadings.
- Document service, finality of orders, and any post‑judgment payments; plead delay/laches and seek dismissal under both 2‑619 and 2‑615 where appropriate.
- Note: as a Rule 23 opinion this decision is persuasive but not binding precedent.