In re Marriage of Cummings, 2022 IL App (1st) 211507

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Cummings, 2022 IL App (1st) 211507 (1st Dist. May 20, 2022).
- Petitioner–Appellant: Shawn A. Cummings. Respondent–Appellee: Alma Cummings.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether orders entered by the trial judge after she allegedly recused herself (or stated she “should recuse”/was “sick of this case”) are void.
- Whether a petition for substitution of judge for cause (Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 63) was effectively granted against the judge such that subsequent orders, including an allocation agreement and the dissolution judgment, lacked jurisdictional validity.
- Whether the trial court erred by denying Shawn’s motion to vacate based on the alleged recusal.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Shawn’s motion to vacate. The court held Judge Jeanne R. Cleveland‑Bernstein did not recuse herself; therefore her subsequent orders (including reinstating pleadings, the allocation agreement, and the dissolution judgment) were not void.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Formality required: The court emphasized that a judge’s recusal must be clear and effectuated according to procedure. The February 22, 2021 form entitled “ORDER REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE OR RECUSAL” checked the box indicating a petition for substitution had been filed and transferred to the presiding judge for a hearing — but the box indicating the judge actually recused herself was not checked. That procedural distinction was dispositive.
- Oral statements insufficient: The judge’s exclamations (e.g., “I should recuse myself,” “I’m sick of this case”) and temporary recess did not amount to a formal recusal. A judge cannot grant a substitution petition “against herself”; the petition must be processed by the presiding judge.
- Subsequent proceedings: The petition for substitution was assigned to another judge (who later denied it and returned the case to Judge Bernstein). Judge Bernstein expressly vacated the earlier “pleadings stricken” language and reinstated pleadings before proceeding to trial; those steps demonstrated continuing and proper jurisdiction.
- Record considerations: The absence of full transcripts for earlier hearings constrained the appellant’s proofs; trial court findings that no formal recusal occurred were supported by the written orders and subsequent conduct.

5. Practice implications
- Do not rely on a judge’s informal or oral remarks as constituting a formal recusal — secure a written recusal order or obtain prompt clarification on the record.
- When seeking substitution for cause under Rule 63, ensure proper routing and that the presiding judge acts; a judge cannot self‑grant a substitution against herself.
- Preserve the record: obtain transcripts or bystander reports for contentious hearings where recusal or bias is alleged; ambiguous clerk forms or oral remarks will be construed against a party claiming voidness.
- If confusion arises from clerk orders (e.g., “pleadings stricken”), obtain immediate clarifying written orders to protect later challenges to jurisdiction.