In re Marriage of Frisz, 2023 IL App (1st) 230505-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Frisz, 2023 IL App (1st) 230505-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Keith Frisz. Respondent-Appellee: Marilyn Frisz.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review postjudgment orders where a separate Rule 137 sanctions motion remained pending in the trial court when the notice of appeal was filed.
2) Application of Illinois Supreme Court Rules 303(a)(1)–(2) (timeliness and savings for premature notices), and 304(a) (requirement of an express written finding when multiple claims or parties remain).

- Holding/outcome
The First District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded it could not reach the merits because the procedural posturing left the appealed orders nonfinal for purposes of appeal.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court reiterated that appellate jurisdiction is a threshold question that must be resolved before considering merits. When Keith first filed his notice of appeal (Frisz I), Marilyn had a Rule 137 motion for sanctions still pending in the trial court, and the trial court had not entered the express written finding required by Rule 304(a) that there was "no just reason for delaying appeal." Because of this, the initial appeal was premature. Although Marilyn later withdrew her Rule 137 motion and the trial court entered an order reflecting that nothing remained pending, Keith did not supplement the appellate record to show that subsequent development. The appellate court therefore lacked knowledge of the withdrawal when deciding Frisz I and again declined jurisdiction in the later-filed appeal. The decision centers on enforcing the finality/timeliness rules: a premature notice can be saved under Rule 303(a)(2) but only where the record supports that the separate claim has been resolved; failure to timely supplement the appellate record forecloses that saving.

- Practice implications (for family-law practitioners)
- Do not file a notice of appeal while separate postjudgment motions (including sanctions under Rule 137) remain pending unless you obtain a Rule 304(a) written finding.
- If a postjudgment motion is later resolved (withdrawn or decided) after a premature notice, promptly supplement the appellate record with the dispositive trial-court order so the appellate court can apply Rule 303(a)(2)’s saving provision.
- Preserve the record: include trial-court orders disposing of all pending claims and any Rule 304(a) language; file timely notices and supplements to avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.