In re Marriage of Frisz, 2023 IL App (1st) 220530-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Frisz, 2023 IL App (1st) 220530-U.
- Petitioner-Appellant: Keith Frisz. Respondent-Appellee: Marilyn Frisz.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal when a trial-court motion for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018) remained pending at the time the notice of appeal was filed.
- Underlying factual dispute concern: whether the plan administrator overpaid respondent under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and whether trial court erred in interpreting the marital settlement agreement / QDRO (raised on the merits).

3. Holding/outcome
- The First District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Rule 137 sanctions motion remained pending in the circuit court when appellant filed his notice of appeal and the trial court did not enter an express written finding under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) that there was no just reason for delaying appeal, the appellate court could not reach the merits.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Finality and jurisdiction: the court emphasized that appellate jurisdiction requires a final judgment or compliance with Rule 304(a) when fewer than all claims or parties are disposed. A pending Rule 137 sanctions motion in the trial court meant the matter was not sufficiently final for appeal.
- Procedural posture matters more than the substantive merits: even though appellant challenged the trial court’s interpretation of the marital settlement agreement and QDRO (arguing an overpayment), the unresolved sanctions motion was a procedural bar that foreclosed appellate review. The court relied on the absence of an express Rule 304(a) finding to conclude the notice of appeal was premature.

5. Practice implications (concise takeaways for practitioners)
- Do not file a notice of appeal while a Rule 137 sanctions motion (or other postjudgment motions that can affect finality) remains pending unless the trial court has made an express Rule 304(a) finding. Appeals filed under those circumstances risk dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- If you need immediate appellate review of a severable portion of a case, secure a written Rule 304(a) finding on the record before filing a notice of appeal.
- Where opposing counsel files a Rule 137 motion, consider (a) seeking a prompt ruling, (b) withdrawing or resolving the sanctions motion before appealing, or (c) asking the trial court for a 304(a) finding if immediate appeal is strategically necessary.
- Appellees should move to dismiss appeals that are premature for lack of jurisdiction when postjudgment motions remain unresolved.