In re Marriage of Gates, 2019 IL App (1st) 181649-U

In re Marriage of Gates, 2019 IL App (1st) 181649‑U (1st Dist. Mar. 19, 2019) (Rule 23 — non‑precedential)
Parties: Petitioner‑Appellant Tiffany Gates v. Respondent‑Appellee Veron Gates.

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Gates, 2019 IL App (1st) 181649‑U. Petitioner: Tiffany Gates (mother/custodial parent). Respondent: Veron Gates (father/visiting parent).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to relocate (and denial of her motion to reconsider) when other post‑dissolution motions remained pending.
- Whether the record was adequate to review claimed errors in the relocation determination.

3) Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that, even if jurisdiction existed, the record was insufficient to review the merits.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Finality/appealability: Under Supreme Court Rule 304(a), an order disposing of fewer than all claims or parties is not appealable unless the trial court makes an express written finding that “there is no just reason for delay.” At the time appellant filed her notice of appeal, multiple post‑dissolution matters remained pending (respondent’s petitions to modify allocation of parenting responsibility and parenting time; rule to show cause; petitions for fees; petitioner’s sanctions motion), and additional petitions were filed after the notice. The trial court did not enter a Rule 304(a) finding. Accordingly the order was not final or appealable.
- Procedural compliance: Appellant’s jurisdictional statement failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(4)(ii), omitting required facts for appellate jurisdiction; the court cautioned counsel regarding compliance.
- Record adequacy: Appellant did not include a transcript or bystander’s report of the evidentiary hearing on the relocation motion. Under Foutch v. O’Bryant, absent a complete record, the appellate court presumes the trial court’s ruling conformed to law. Thus, merits review was unavailable even if the appeal were otherwise proper.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Do not appeal post‑dissolution rulings while other claims/motions remain unresolved unless you obtain a written Rule 304(a) finding. Request the §304(a) finding at entry (or move for it later).
- Ensure full compliance with Rule 341 jurisdictional requirements in the appellate brief.
- Preserve an adequate record for review: include trial transcripts or a bystander’s report for any contested evidentiary hearings; absent that, errors will be presumed waived under Foutch.
- Remember Rule 23 caution: this decision is non‑precedential except as permitted by the rule.