In re Marriage of Gilbert, 2019 IL App (3d) 180116-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Gilbert, 2019 IL App (3d) 180116-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Jan. 4, 2019) (Rule 23 order; not precedent except as allowed).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Todd E. Gilbert. Respondent-Appellant: Pamela Gilbert. Petition concerned a court order to require vaccination of the parties’ two minor children under their joint parenting agreement.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the denial of a defendant/respondent’s motion for a directed finding at the close of the petitioner’s case is an immediately appealable final order.
- Whether the trial court’s grant of “leave to appeal” can create appellate jurisdiction where none otherwise exists.
- Whether Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(5) (interlocutory appeals affecting child custody/parental responsibilities) or the directed-finding statute (735 ILCS 5/2-1110) supplied jurisdiction.

3) Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court held the trial court’s denial of the directed-finding motion was not a final, appealable order and the trial court’s grant of leave to appeal did not confer jurisdiction. The appellant also failed to use Rule 306(a)(5)’s petition-for-leave procedure.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Finality: A final judgment disposes of rights as to the entire controversy or a definite/separate part (Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a)). The denial of the directed finding did not adjudicate the petition for vaccination or alter parties’ rights; it merely allowed the case to proceed.
- Trial-court “leave” insufficient: A lower court cannot transform a nonfinal interlocutory order into an appealable final order simply by granting leave to appeal. Inland Commercial Property Mgmt. cited.
- Procedural compliance: Rule 306(a)(5) requires a petition for leave to appeal for interlocutory orders affecting parental responsibilities; appellant filed a notice instead of petitioning, so Rule 306 was not available.
- Statute on directed findings (735 ILCS 5/2-1110) does not create immediate appellate jurisdiction; the fact that the motion is waived if the defendant proceeds does not render the denial final or justify immediate appeal.

5) Practice implications
- Denial of a directed finding at close of petitioner/plaintiff’s case is typically not immediately appealable—defendants should either (a) present their case and appeal a later final judgment, or (b) “stand on” the motion and offer no evidence, forcing a judgment that can be appealed.
- If seeking interlocutory appellate review in family/custody matters, follow Rule 306(a)(5)’s petition-for-leave procedure strictly.
- Trial courts cannot create appellate jurisdiction by labeling an order appealable; counsel must plan litigation strategy accordingly to preserve appellate rights.