In re Marriage of Harnack, 2019 IL App (1st) 170813-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Harnack, 2019 IL App (1st) 170813-U (1st Dist. Mar. 21, 2019). Petitioner-Appellant: Pamela Harnack. Respondent-Appellee: Steve Fanady. Related parties: Jerome Israelov (plaintiff in partnership action), CBOE Holdings, Inc., Computershare Shareowner Services, LLC, Alpha Industries, LLC, Michelle Marme, Fanmare, and others (consolidated dissolution, partnership, and interpleader proceedings).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider Harnack’s appeals from trial-court orders that were nonfinal or interlocutory.
2) Whether the trial court erred in denying Harnack’s post-judgment motion (motion to reconsider/release shares) and in its treatment of competing third-party claims to CBOE stock and dividends.
3) Related issues concerning division/transfer of CBOE shares issued on demutualization and whether trial-court relief could be granted while interpleader/third-party rights remained unresolved.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court dismissed Harnack’s appeals against Fanady for lack of jurisdiction because the appealed orders were not final. As to Harnack’s claims against Fanady’s business partners and other third parties, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Harnack’s motion to reconsider (i.e., the trial court did not misapply the law in refusing to release or reallocate the disputed shares while third‑party claims were pending).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Appellate jurisdiction: The court reiterated that appeals must be taken from final judgments (Ill. Sup. Ct. Rules) or under narrow interlocutory provisions (e.g., Rule 307). Harnack’s interlocutory requests (to release stock/dividends) were premature while prior appeals and mandates remained pending and third‑party rights were unresolved.
- Protection of third‑party rights & interpleader: The trial court properly declined to distribute shares when CBOE/Computershare and other claimants asserted conflicting claims; releasing shares could prejudice third parties. The court’s factual findings—detailing Fanady’s misconduct, transfers and irregularities around the CBOE demutualization—supported resolving ownership through the consolidated proceedings before ordering distribution.
- Motion to reconsider: Appellate court applied the ordinary standard that reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate issues or correct invited consequences; Harnack failed to show the trial court misapplied controlling law.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Don’t prematurely appeal interlocutory orders—confirm finality or invoke the correct interlocutory rule; ensure prior mandates have issued before pressing circuit-court relief.
- Where marital property includes assets subject to third‑party claims (e.g., interpleader, partnership disputes), coordinate parallel litigation and seek clear, final orders that address third‑party rights before ordering transfers.
- Use interpleader and injunctions carefully; courts will protect potential innocent claimants and may refuse asset turnover until ownership disputes are adjudicated.
- Preserve record and factual findings: when complex financial transfers and alleged fraud are involved, thorough factual findings help sustain the trial court’s exercise of discretion on remand/appeal.