In re Marriage of Bush, 2021 IL App (1st) 210047-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bush, 2021 IL App (1st) 210047-U (1st Dist. Aug. 6, 2021) (Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Erika Bush; Respondent‑Appellant: Edwin F. Bush.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the appellant’s brief complied with Ill. S. Ct. Rule 341(h) (Statement of Facts) and consequences of noncompliance.
- Whether the trial court retained subject‑matter jurisdiction to enter a plenary order of protection after an emergency order lapsed/was allegedly improperly extended.
- Whether the trial court violated appellant’s due‑process rights by proceeding in part while he was absent (calendar conflict).
- Whether prior rulings (emergency order) dictated the trial court’s treatment of subsequent evidence (law‑of‑the‑case argument).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court struck Edwin’s brief for violating Rule 341(h) and dismissed the appeal. The underlying two‑year plenary order of protection (entered after a December 15, 2020 evidentiary hearing) therefore stood. The opinion emphasized it is non‑precedential under Rule 23.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Rule 341(h)(6) requires a concise, accurate “Statement of Facts” tied to the record; compliance is mandatory even for pro se litigants (citing Voris; McCann). Edwin’s brief minimized the evidentiary hearing and the plenary order to two sentences while including many irrelevant historical facts, which prevented meaningful appellate review. Given extreme noncompliance, striking the brief and dismissing the appeal was an appropriate sanction despite its severity (Powell acknowledged).
- On the merits (discussed but not necessary to decide because of the procedural defect), the court noted that even if the emergency order lapsed, that lapse does not divest the trial court of subject‑matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition for a plenary order of protection (citing Scheider v. Ackerman). The court suggested Edwin’s jurisdictional and due‑process claims would likely fail.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Appellate briefs must strictly comply with Rule 341(h): provide a focused, record‑based Statement of Facts recounting key testimony, exhibits, objections, rulings, and the challenged order. Failure can lead to striking the brief and dismissal.
- Pro se status is not a shield from procedural requirements.
- Challenge to jurisdiction based on an expired interim/emergency order is unlikely to succeed — trial courts retain jurisdiction to decide plenary petitions (see Scheider).
- If a client cannot attend a hearing, preserve the record: move for continuance, make explicit due‑process objections on the record, and secure transcripts. Without a developed record, appellate relief is unlikely.