In re Marriage of Gabrys, 2023 IL App (1st) 221763

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Gabrys, 2023 IL App (1st) 221763 (1st Dist., Nov. 22, 2023). Petitioner-Appellant: Halina Gabrys. Respondent-Appellee: Czeslaw Gabrys.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the immediate sale of the marital residence during a pending dissolution under 750 ILCS 5/501.
- Jurisdictional and timing issues for interlocutory appeal (claimed Rule 304(a) vs. Rule 307(a)(1)).

3. Holding/outcome
The appellate court reversed. It found the sale order to be an abuse of discretion and addressed appellate jurisdiction: Rule 304(a) did not properly apply, but the court had jurisdiction under Rule 307(a)(1) because the October 19, 2022 order modified prior injunctive relief; petitioner’s notice of appeal (filed within 30 days of that order) was therefore timely.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Section 501(a)(3) authorizes “other appropriate temporary relief,” including sale of assets in extraordinary circumstances, but such sales are disfavored and permitted only to preserve the status quo pending final dissolution.
- Maintaining a marital home by paying mortgage and taxes is not “dissipation”; dissipation involves wasting marital assets for sole benefit unrelated to marriage. Routine payments do not justify pre-judgment sale. (Citing Meyer; Miller; Hubbs.)
- The sale ordered here was not genuinely temporary (it required immediate listing/sale of a unique asset) and therefore exceeded the limited authority of §501. The court erred in substituting a permanent-altering remedy absent extraordinary proof that no lesser measure would preserve the estate.
- Jurisdiction: although the Rule 304(a) label was improper because the order was not final, the October 19 order modified injunctive relief (added immediate sale language), bringing it within interlocutory appealability under Rule 307(a)(1); the 30‑day interlocutory appeal clock is not tolled by a motion to reconsider.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Seek concrete, record-based proof of “extraordinary circumstances” before moving to sell marital property pre-judgment; demonstrate why lesser measures (escrow, security, temporary funding from other assets, bond, appointment of a receiver, sale of non-unique assets) won’t protect the estate.
- Do not equate routine mortgage/tax payments with dissipation. If arguing dissipation, document misuse/squandering of assets.
- When opposing a pre-judgment sale, emphasize preservation-of-status-quo remedies and argue the sale is effectively permanent.
- Watch interlocutory appeal deadlines: Rule 307(a)(1) notices must be filed within 30 days of the interlocutory order; motion to reconsider does not toll that deadline. If a court labels a nonfinal order as Rule 304(a), preserve alternative jurisdictional arguments.
- Ensure any sale order contains specific findings justifying extraordinary relief and specifies temporary/limited scope to survive appellate scrutiny.