In re Marriage of Bonzani, 2025 IL App (3d) 230793-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bonzani, 2025 IL App (3d) 230793-U (Order filed Apr. 16, 2025) (Rule 23 — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Phyllis Bonzani n/k/a Sporlein. Respondent‑Appellant: Robert Bonzani.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Robert’s 2016 pro se petition to reduce child support for want of prosecution after Robert obtained counsel.
- Whether the court properly set a child‑support arrearage purge (and imposed contempt sanctions) without permitting a hearing on ability to pay or resolving the pending modification petition.

3) Holding / outcome
- Appellate court vacated the dismissal of the 2016 petition for want of prosecution and vacated the purge order; remanded for further proceedings. The decision reversed the trial court’s dismissal and the related contempt purge without reaching other merits.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Modification retroactivity: under 750 ILCS 5/510(a), modification generally affects only installments accruing after notice (i.e., the filing date); dismissing the 2016 petition deprived Robert of a potential retroactive reduction.
- Abuse of discretion standard: dismissal for lack of diligent prosecution requires evidence of intentional delay or prejudice; trial courts must exercise conscientious judgment and cannot rely on speculation.
- The trial court dismissed because counsel declined to “adopt” the pro se petition and the judge “suspected” counsel thought allegations false. The appellate court found that rationale speculative and unreasonable. Counsel had requested leave to amend — which weighs against a finding of abandonment or deliberate delay — and there was no showing of prejudice to Phyllis.
- The court also set a purge and sentenced Robert to jail without evidence regarding his present ability to pay income, assets, or liabilities; because the pending petition could alter arrearage calculations, the purge order was vacated as tied to the erroneous dismissal.

5) Practice implications (tips for litigators)
- Defense counsel: you are not required to “adopt” prior pro se filings; if you decline, expressly move to amend and place that request on the record. Preserve arguments about timeliness, prejudice, and proper notice if you seek dismissal.
- Moving party/opponent: to obtain dismissal for want of prosecution, develop a factual record of intentional delay and prejudice — speculation about counsel’s motives is insufficient.
- Contempt/arrearage hearings: courts must consider ability to pay and current financials before setting purge amounts or imposing jail; resolve pending modification petitions that could affect arrearages before final sanctions.
- Preserve requests for retroactive relief under 750 ILCS 5/510(a) by timely filing and opposing unwarranted dismissals; seek reasonable amendment under 735 ILCS 5/2‑616(a) when counsel takes over.