In re Marriage of Faletti, 2017 IL App (3d) 160323

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Faletti, 2017 IL App (3d) 160323 (Apr. 27, 2017). Petitioner-Appellee: Dominic J. Faletti, Jr., guardian of the estate and person of Dominic J. Faletti, Sr. Respondents-Appellants: Thomas Kasher (guardian of the estate of Virginia Faletti) and Teresa Convery (guardian of the person of Virginia Faletti).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate a bifurcated judgment of dissolution that was entered while a spouse allegedly lacked capacity and before a guardian for that spouse had been appointed/served. 2) Whether entry of the bifurcated dissolution without notice/consent of the ward’s guardian deprived the ward of procedural due process and rendered the order void or vacatable.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the respondents’ motion to vacate and remanded with directions (i.e., the appellate court found error in the trial court’s handling of the January 23, 2015 entry of the bifurcated judgment).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court focused on procedural protections for an allegedly incapacitated spouse. The record showed repeated representations by respondents’ counsel that a guardianship would be sought and that the guardian would address entry of the dissolution order; guardianship proceedings concluded the same day the dissolution was entered, and respondents’ counsel contend they did not consent to or have notice of the January 23 entry. The trial court relied on perceived delay and fault by the ward’s adult children to justify refusing vacation. The appellate court rejected that result, holding that a ward’s interests cannot be overridden by the court’s frustration with litigation delay and that entry of a marital-asset-affecting order without the ward’s guardian having been appointed and given notice is improper. Due-process and jurisdictional principles require meaningful representation/notice before substantive orders affecting a disabled person’s property or marital status are entered.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Do not present or accept entry of dissolution orders affecting an allegedly incapacitated spouse until a guardian is appointed or the party’s competency and counsel authority are clearly established on the record.
- Obtain and place on the record either a guardian’s written consent or explicit court finding that the party is competent to litigate.
- When urgency (e.g., Medicaid/long‑term care) exists, use emergency motions and ensure proper service and probate coordination—do not short‑circuit notice requirements.
- If a judgment is entered without notice to a guardian or while guardianship is pending, move promptly to vacate; preserve transcripts and docket entries that show lack of notice/consent.