In re Marriage of Czerniak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210375-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Czerniak, No. 2-21-0375, 2022 IL App (2d) 210375-U (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 2, 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: James Czerniak. Respondent‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Pamela Czerniak.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in repeatedly denying Pamela’s motions to continue trial.
- Whether the court properly sanctioned Pamela under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (barring testimony) for discovery abuses.
- Whether the court properly awarded attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) for needlessly increased litigation costs.
- Whether the court correctly imputed $50,000 annual income to Pamela for maintenance purposes.
- Whether the trial court complied with 750 ILCS 5/504(f) in requiring James to secure maintenance with life insurance (James’s cross‑appeal).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all respects. The appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuances, imposing Rule 219 sanctions, awarding section 508(b) fees, imputing income to Pamela, or ordering security for maintenance by life insurance.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Continuances: The trial court’s decisions were supported by a lengthy record of repeated counsel turnover, untimely and duplicative discovery requests directed at Morgan Stanley, and prior rulings denying further subpoenas — conduct showing Pamela’s pattern of delay. Trial scheduling is within the trial court’s discretion; no abuse was shown.
- Rule 219(c): The court found willful frustration of discovery — Pamela refused to answer deposition questions on Morgan Stanley issues, failed to disclose expert opinions by court deadlines, and relied on unsupported claims that justified barring related testimony. Sanctions under Rule 219 are appropriate for substantial discovery violations.
- Section 508(b): The record demonstrated litigation conduct that needlessly increased costs (multiple continuances, late production, repetitive motions, excessive counsel). Although the 508(b) motion was presented during trial, the court had been repeatedly apprised of and had ruled on the problematic conduct; awarding fees was justified.
- Imputation of income: The court imputed $50,000 based on Pamela’s recent work history, prior salary (~$50K), voluntary resignation to care for children, lack of diligent job search or credible evidence of current earnings, and statutory maintenance factors.
- Maintenance security: The appellate court rejected James’s argument and upheld the trial court’s order requiring life‑insurance security under section 504(f) as a permissible exercise of authority to secure maintenance.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve the record of discovery abuses and counsel turnover; courts respect detailed chronicling of delay tactics.
- Use depositions and timely expert disclosures; failure to disclose can trigger Rule 219 sanctions (including barring testimony).
- Consider section 508(b) where opponent’s litigation conduct materially increases costs — but provide clear notice and supporting documentation/affidavits where practicable.
- Be prepared to defend (or seek) income imputation with concrete evidence of prior earnings, job availability, and efforts to find work.
- When seeking or opposing security for maintenance, make explicit record addressing statutory criteria under 504(f).
- Note: this is a Rule 23 non‑precedential order — persuasive but limited precedential value.