In re Marriage of Cantway, 2022 IL App (1st) 210092-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Cantway, No. 3-21-0092, 2022 IL App (3d) 210092-U (May 4, 2022) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Diana Cantway. Respondent‑Appellant: Jack Cantway.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in allocating marital debt and ordering guideline child support under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq.) in light of appellant’s claim that all debts were discharged by a purported “cestui que trust.”
2. Whether the appeal was frivolous under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(b) and whether sanctions should be imposed.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dissolution judgment (each party responsible for their own debts; Diana awarded the marital residence and ordered to refinance to remove appellant’s liability; Jack ordered to pay $1,031/month child support and to refinance or sell other properties). The court found the appeal objectively frivolous under Rule 375(b) and ordered submission of billing affidavits and a show‑cause response to determine whether sanctions (attorney fees/costs) should be imposed. No monetary sanction was imposed immediately.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Jack, proceeding pro se, failed to produce any evidence of a cestui que trust and repeatedly refused to respond to discovery; many filings advanced sovereign‑citizen style theories (that the U.S. Government or a cestui que trust was sole debtor) unsupported by law or fact.
- The record supported the trial court’s discretionary allocation of debt and child support under IMDMA (citing 750 ILCS 5/503, 5/505), and the Act does not provide a jury trial on dissolution matters (750 ILCS 5/103).
- The appellate court applied the objective standard for Rule 375(b): an appeal is frivolous if not reasonably grounded in fact or law and lacking a good‑faith basis for modifying existing law. Given the absence of supporting authority or evidence and prior similar sanctions history, the appeal met that standard.
- The court followed Rule 375(b)’s procedure: it ordered Diana’s counsel to file billing statements and gave Jack an opportunity to show cause before imposing sanctions.

- Practice implications
- Courts will reject and may sanction appeals premised on unrecognized “cestui que”/sovereign‑citizen theories. Pro se status does not shield litigants from Rule 375(b) sanctions.
- Counsel should aggressively pursue discovery and preserve record showing lack of factual support for frivolous claims.
- When an appeal appears frivolous, promptly seek Rule 375(b) relief (billing affidavits and show‑cause process).
- In dissolution cases, expect appellate deference to trial court discretion on debt allocation and statutory child support calculations under the IMDMA.