In re Marriage of Brosh

Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 10/21/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary: <h3>Case</h3> <strong>No.</strong> 5-23-0114 (2025 IL App (5th) 230114-U) <strong>Court:</strong> Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District <h3>Parties</h3> <strong>Petitioner‑Appellee:</strong> Don...

Full Case Summary

Case

No. 5-23-0114 (2025 IL App (5th) 230114-U) Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District

Parties

Petitioner‑Appellee: Donna Brosh Respondent‑Appellant: Kenneth Brosh

Panel

Opinion by: Justice Cates Concurrence: Justices Vaughan and Sholar

Procedural Posture

An emergency order of protection issued January 12, 2023, and a two‑year plenary order was entered January 30, 2023. Kenneth timely appealed pro se. The appellate court initially issued a Rule 23 summary order on June 2, 2025, then granted rehearing and withdrew that order July 3, 2025 because part of Kenneth’s brief was omitted due to an electronic filing error; the record was completed and the court filed its decision affirming the circuit court on September 30, 2025. (Rule 23 notice: not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).)

Holding

Affirmed. The Fifth District upheld the two‑year plenary order of protection; the circuit court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Core Facts

- The parties’ dissolution litigation began in 2016 and was protracted and contentious, spawning many further petitions (maintenance/child support disputes). - Donna alleged ongoing harassment and stalking by Kenneth since the December 2019 dissolution judgment, including repeated photography/surveillance of her home and properties, razor blades embedded in vehicle tires, and a cracked windshield. - Kenneth admitted taking numerous photographs (he produced about 70 photos and acknowledged several exhibits) and recruiting others (including a person already subject to protection orders) to do surveillance, claiming it was to impeach Donna in maintenance litigation. Some surveillance occurred while a prior protective order was active (Jan. 2, 2020–Jan. 2, 2021). - An emergency order (Jan. 12, 2023) directed Kenneth to have no contact and to remain 500 feet away; a plenary hearing was held Jan. 30, 2023.

Key Evidence & Trial Findings

- The circuit court credited Donna’s testimony about fear and distress and found Kenneth’s conduct constituted harassment (and addressed stalking but relied on the harassment finding). - Admitted evidence included several photographs taken within 500 feet of Donna’s residence (Kenneth acknowledged some exhibits he took); one exhibit reasonably appeared to show a handgun on a dashboard (Kenneth disputed this). - The court found repeated surveillance unnecessary and unreasonable given available discovery tools, aggravated by use of unlicensed associates and prior protection‑order history. The statutory presumption that certain repeated surveillance causes emotional distress (750 ILCS 60/103(7)) applied and Kenneth failed to rebut it.

Arguments on Appeal

- Kenneth argued the surveillance was reasonable and necessary for litigation, that Donna did not suffer emotional distress because she was unaware of surveillance at the time, and that there was insufficient tangible evidence for the damage allegations. He relied on In re Marriage of Goodman (distinguished by the court). - Donna argued the order was supported by the record, pointing to prior plenary orders, the volume and proximity of photographs, and the statutory presumption of emotional distress.

Appellate Reasoning

- Standard of review: manifest‑weight for factual findings; appellate court defers to the trial court’s credibility determinations. - The court found the record supported the trial court’s credibility assessments and inferences (proximity/volume of photos, disputed firearm image, involvement of cohorts with protection‑order histories, Kenneth’s minimizing courtroom statements, and the surveillance during an active protective order). Goodman was distinguishable. - Because the trial court’s conclusion that Kenneth’s conduct constituted harassment and caused presumed emotional distress was not clearly erroneous, reversal was not warranted.

Disposition & Practical Effect

The plenary two‑year order of protection (no harassment or contact; 500‑foot no‑contact zone), entered January 30, 2023 and running through January 30, 2025, is affirmed. The court’s earlier Rule 23 summary order was withdrawn to allow a complete record and rehearing before final disposition.

Download PDF Opinion Ask AI About This Case

Ask AI About This Case

Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Brosh? Ask our AI assistant below.