In re Marriage of Browne, 2021 IL App (1st) 181558-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Browne, 2021 IL App (1st) 181558-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 14, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Michele A. Browne. Respondent‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Robert P. Browne.

2) Key legal issues
- Appellate jurisdiction/finality of appeals from dissolution and interim orders.
- Whether the trial court properly (a) imposed or denied Rule 137 sanctions and (b) awarded statutory attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b).
- Adequacy of the trial court’s maintenance calculation (treatment of health insurance and out‑of‑pocket cancer treatment).
- Classification of a Georgia residence titled to the wife: marital vs. non‑marital property.

3) Holding/outcome (short)
- Two of the four consolidated appeals were dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction (prematurity/finality defects).
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 137 sanctions (opponent acted on a reasonable, good‑faith legal theory), but the court erred in ordering statutory attorney fees under §508(b); that fee award was vacated.
- The maintenance award was largely sustainable but failed to account for petitioner’s health‑insurance obligation and ongoing cancer treatment — remand for appropriate adjustment.
- The trial court’s classification of the Georgia residence as marital property was affirmed.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction: appeals taken while post‑dissolution matters (contribution/fee petitions, contempt proceedings, or motions to reconsider) remained pending were not from final, appealable orders; notices of appeal were therefore premature.
- Rule 137: sanctions require an objectively baseless position or improper purpose; where respondent advanced a reasonable, good‑faith legal argument about enforceability of the dissolution order, denial of sanctions was appropriate.
- §508(b) fees: the appellate court concluded the trial court erred in awarding statutory fees under the Act under these circumstances (including the reasonableness of respondent’s conduct and the finality/enforceability issues), so the statutory fee award was vacated.
- Property classification: title alone is not dispositive; to rebut the presumption of marital property the proponent must show clear and convincing evidence of an intended gift — trial court reasonably found that evidence lacking given joint conduct, mortgage payments, and other indicia of marital character.

5) Practice implications (practical takeaways)
- Avoid premature appeals while post‑judgment fee/contempt/transfer motions remain unresolved; preserve finality to secure appellate jurisdiction.
- When seeking Rule 137 sanctions, develop record proving objective baselessness and improper motive; courts will tolerate reasonable, good‑faith legal positions.
- Be cautious when pursuing §508(b) fee awards where underlying orders’ enforceability/finality is contested; appellate scrutiny may vacate fees if the opposing position was reasonable.
- In maintenance disputes, record all health‑insurance responsibility and ongoing medical treatment costs (document necessity and coordination with treating physicians) — trial courts must account for these when computing need.
- For assets titled to one spouse, assemble clear, convincing evidence of gift intent (corroboration, contemporaneous statements, estate planning context, payment history).