In re Marriage of Hooper, 2025 IL App (1st) 240446-U
Case Analysis
- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hooper, No. 1-24-0446, 2025 IL App (1st) 240446-U (Ill. App. Ct. June 2, 2025). Petitioner-Appellant: Jennel Hooper. Respondent-Appellee: Richard Olds III.
- Key legal issues
Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial court order allocating parental responsibility when a timely postjudgment motion to vacate/stay remained pending in the trial court; impact of Illinois Supreme Court Rules 303 and 304 and the effect of a timely postjudgment motion on the effectiveness of a notice of appeal.
- Holding/outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because a timely postjudgment motion (emergency motion to vacate and stay) was pending and the trial court had not disposed of it; the notice of appeal was therefore premature under Rule 303(a)(2).
- Significant legal reasoning
The court acknowledged that custody/parenting judgments are immediately appealable under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(6). However, Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(2) provides that if a timely postjudgment motion is filed, a notice of appeal filed before the trial court disposes of that motion is not effective until the motion is resolved. Here, Hooper’s attorney filed an emergency motion to vacate and stay within 30 days of the January 31, 2024 parental-responsibility order; Hooper filed a pro se notice of appeal the following day. The record contained no order disposing of the postjudgment motion, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. The panel therefore declined to reach the merits (including Hooper’s notice/adequate opportunity-to-be-heard argument) and dismissed the appeal.
- Practice implications (concise takeaways)
- Timely postjudgment motions divest the appellate court of jurisdiction until disposed of; do not file a premature appeal.
- Ensure trial courts enter explicit disposition orders on postjudgment motions (docketing matters). Lack of a ruling is jurisdictionally fatal to an appeal.
- If opposing counsel files a premature notice, move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 303(a)(2).
- Coordinate representation and filings—pro se filings alongside counsel can create tactical and procedural complications.
- Custody orders remain immediately appealable absent a pending postjudgment motion; practitioners should monitor and calendar deadlines precisely.
In re Marriage of Hooper, No. 1-24-0446, 2025 IL App (1st) 240446-U (Ill. App. Ct. June 2, 2025). Petitioner-Appellant: Jennel Hooper. Respondent-Appellee: Richard Olds III.
- Key legal issues
Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial court order allocating parental responsibility when a timely postjudgment motion to vacate/stay remained pending in the trial court; impact of Illinois Supreme Court Rules 303 and 304 and the effect of a timely postjudgment motion on the effectiveness of a notice of appeal.
- Holding/outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because a timely postjudgment motion (emergency motion to vacate and stay) was pending and the trial court had not disposed of it; the notice of appeal was therefore premature under Rule 303(a)(2).
- Significant legal reasoning
The court acknowledged that custody/parenting judgments are immediately appealable under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(6). However, Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(2) provides that if a timely postjudgment motion is filed, a notice of appeal filed before the trial court disposes of that motion is not effective until the motion is resolved. Here, Hooper’s attorney filed an emergency motion to vacate and stay within 30 days of the January 31, 2024 parental-responsibility order; Hooper filed a pro se notice of appeal the following day. The record contained no order disposing of the postjudgment motion, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. The panel therefore declined to reach the merits (including Hooper’s notice/adequate opportunity-to-be-heard argument) and dismissed the appeal.
- Practice implications (concise takeaways)
- Timely postjudgment motions divest the appellate court of jurisdiction until disposed of; do not file a premature appeal.
- Ensure trial courts enter explicit disposition orders on postjudgment motions (docketing matters). Lack of a ruling is jurisdictionally fatal to an appeal.
- If opposing counsel files a premature notice, move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 303(a)(2).
- Coordinate representation and filings—pro se filings alongside counsel can create tactical and procedural complications.
- Custody orders remain immediately appealable absent a pending postjudgment motion; practitioners should monitor and calendar deadlines precisely.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Facing a Similar Legal Issue?
Appellate decisions shape family law strategy. Ensure your approach aligns with the latest precedents.
Schedule a Strategy SessionLegal Assistant
Ask specific questions about this case's holding.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.