In re Marriage of Cholach, 2024 IL App (1st) 230618-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Cholach, 2024 IL App (1st) 230618-U (1st Dist. May 3, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Yaryna Cholach. Respondent-Appellant: Nazar Cholach.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions (including a default dissolution judgment) under Supreme Court Rule 219 for repeated discovery and court-order noncompliance.
2) Whether entry of default judgment under those circumstances violated respondent’s constitutional due‑process rights.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions for persistent discovery and court-order violations, and entry of the default dissolution was not a due‑process violation. (Note: decision is non‑precedential under Rule 23.)

- Significant legal reasoning
- The record showed a long history of discovery failures and disobedience of court orders by respondent (failure to produce bank and business records, failure to update financial affidavits, unpaid GAL fees, etc.), despite repeated deadlines and multiple status hearings.
- The trial court issued discrete orders compelling production and warned of consequences; respondent had opportunities to comply and to be heard (responses, hearings, counsel appearances, and chances to cure noncompliance).
- Supreme Court Rule 219 (eff. July 1, 2022) authorizes serious sanctions for discovery abuse. The court applied the familiar abuse‑of‑discretion standard to uphold the sanction (dispositive sanction justified by a continuing pattern of noncompliance and prior warnings).
- On due‑process review, the appellate court found adequate notice and procedural opportunities; sanctions were not imposed unexpectedly or without opportunity to comply or contest.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Treat Rule 219 sanctions as real and potentially dispositive — persistent discovery noncompliance in dissolution cases can lead to default.
- Preserve a clear record of orders, warnings, and opportunities to comply; trial courts focus on patterns of conduct over time.
- Counsel’s withdrawal or client assertions of hardship are not substitutes for compliance; seek extensions or emergency relief early and document efforts.
- Use motions to compel, move for sanctions promptly, and enforce GAL fee orders; interlocutory appeals rarely salvage a party who has repeatedly flouted discovery directives.