In re Marriage of Dalphinis, 2022 IL App (1st) 201404-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dalphinis, 2022 IL App (1st) 201404‑U (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2022) (Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Sparkle Dalphinis. Respondent‑Appellant: Heinson Lorenzo Dalphinis.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the dissolution judgment(s) (Dec. 1 and Dec. 11, 2020) were final and appealable when respondent filed his notice of appeal (Dec. 30, 2020).
- Whether a post‑trial petition for attorney fees (leave granted Dec. 11, 2020; petition filed Jan. 5, 2021) is part of the underlying dissolution judgment such that its pendency defeats finality.

3) Holding / outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The December 1 and December 11 orders were not final and appealable because the attorney‑fee issue remained pending when the notice of appeal was filed.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Illinois appellate jurisdiction requires a final judgment (Ill. S. Ct. R. 301, 303). A dissolution action is a single claim; collateral matters that are integrally related (property division, maintenance, child support, and pre‑dissolution attorney fees) are part of that claim and must be resolved before finality (Cohn; Leopando; Verdung; Derning; Tomei; King).
- Trial court retained jurisdiction to reconsider within 30 days (Brewer). The court properly reconsidered its Rule 137 sanctions and expressly reopened the fee issue, granting leave to file a fee petition under 750 ILCS (Marriage & Dissolution Act). Because the fee petition remained unresolved when the notice of appeal was filed, the judgment was not final (and thus not appealable).
- The court relied on recent internal precedent emphasizing the same principle (In re Marriage of Montana & Vildzuiniene, 2022 IL App (1st) 190605‑U).

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Do not file a notice of appeal while attorney‑fee petitions or other matters integral to a dissolution remain pending; doing so risks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- If immediate review is needed despite ancillary matters, pursue alternatives: seek an express final, appealable determination under the applicable rules (e.g., attempt to obtain a Rule 304(a) certification where appropriate) or move the trial court to resolve fee issues promptly.
- When litigating sanctions/fee issues, litigants should be mindful that reopening fee determinations within the 30‑day window can extend the case’s finality and affect appellate timing.