In re Marriage of Davis, 2019 IL App (3d) 170389

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Lisa M. Davis, Petitioner‑Appellee, and Caleb A. Davis, Respondent‑Appellant, 2019 IL App (3d) 170389 (3d Dist. Nov. 6, 2019). Judgment affirmed.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the Illinois circuit court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to modify child support after custodial parent and children moved to Indiana.
- Whether the court erred in ordering respondent to contribute to petitioner’s attorney fees.
- Whether the court abused its discretion by denying respondent’s motion for a protective order.

3) Holding / outcome
- Appellate court affirmed: (1) Illinois court had jurisdiction to decide the modification (no subject‑matter problem; any personal‑jurisdiction objection was waived), (2) attorney‑fee contribution as sanctions under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) was proper, and (3) denial of the protective order was not an abuse of discretion.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction: The court distinguished subject‑matter jurisdiction (constitutional power of circuit courts to hear justiciable matters) from personal jurisdiction. Caleb’s challenge was to personal jurisdiction, not subject‑matter jurisdiction. By answering the modification petition without timely objecting, he waived personal‑jurisdiction defenses under 735 ILCS 5/2‑301(a‑5). The matter itself was plainly justiciable under Ill. Const. art. VI, §9.
- Attorney fees: The award was governed by 750 ILCS 5/508(b), which permits allocation of fees as sanctions when a hearing was precipitated or conducted for improper purposes (harassment, unnecessary delay, etc.). The trial court found Caleb’s litigation conduct frivolous and needlessly costly. Sanctions under §508(b) may be imposed without an ability‑to‑pay hearing; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Protective order: The trial court denied the protective order after the subpoena at issue was withdrawn and explained it would address improper future conduct if and when it occurred. Entry of a protective order is discretionary under Supreme Court Rule 201(c)(1); denial was not an abuse of discretion on these facts.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve personal‑jurisdiction defenses early (raise before answering or risk waiver under §2‑301(a‑5)).
- Repeated discovery abuses and dilatory litigation can justify attorney‑fee sanctions under §508(b) without a separate ability‑to‑pay hearing. Document discovery violations to support sanctions.
- Protective orders are discretionary and can be mooted by withdrawal of subpoenas; courts may decline prophylactic restraints and prefer to rule on concrete violations.
- Appellate counsel: adhere to Rule 341 facts requirements—argumentative or incomplete factual statements risk being stricken.