In re Marriage of Crivolio, 2019 IL App (1st) 182178-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Crivolio, 2019 IL App (1st) 182178-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Sept. 16, 2019).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Kathryn Crivolio. Respondent-Appellant: Mark McCombs.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by modifying a post-dissolution order to require respondent to obtain leave of that court before filing any pleadings anywhere in the State of Illinois.
- Whether that modification was an appealable injunction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a).
- Procedural/record issues: effect of appellant’s failure to provide a hearing transcript and appellee’s failure to file a brief.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court held the September 17, 2018 order was an appealable injunction (Rule 307(a)) because it restrained litigation beyond the court’s own docket.
- The court vacated the order as written (finding it overbroad) and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

4. Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Background: earlier appellate decision (Crivolio I) found a prior order limiting filings in the post‑dissolution case to be administrative and non-appealable. While that appeal was pending, Kathryn moved to broaden the restriction to require leave before filing any Illinois pleading; the trial court granted that modification.
- Jurisdiction: the panel concluded the broadened order went beyond internal docket control and functioned as an injunction (it restrained Mark’s ability to file in other Illinois courts), so Rule 307(a) applied. The court distinguished administrative docket-management orders from injunctions that affect parties’ rights outside the pending case (citing In re A Minor).
- Record limitations: because appellant failed to provide a report/transcript of the September 17 hearing, the record was incomplete (Foutch). Ordinarily that presumption of regularity limits reversal absent a per se abuse. Nevertheless, the appellate court found the injunction as drafted impermissibly broad—making the trial court an effective gatekeeper for all Illinois dockets—and thus an abuse of discretion requiring vacation and remand. The opinion was decided on appellant brief alone under First Capitol/Talandis because appellee did not file a brief.

5. Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Domestic relations courts may manage their dockets, but pre-filing restraints that reach into other courts are treated as injunctions and must be narrowly tailored and supported by findings.
- If seeking pre-filing relief, request explicit findings of harassment, necessity, scope limitations (e.g., “relating to the dissolution/post‑dissolution matters”), and a clear legal basis. Avoid blanket statewide pre-filing bans.
- Defending such orders: challenge overbreadth and venue/authority; seek transcript and record to preserve appellate issues.
- Appellate practice: do not rely on appellee’s failure to brief; supply a complete record (transcript/bystander’s report) to avoid presumption of regularity under Foutch.
- Consider alternative remedies (Rule 137 sanctions, contempt, or targeted injunctions) rather than overbroad pre-filing restraints.