In re Marriage of Hooper

Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 6/2/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary: <h3>Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 240446</h3> <strong>Case Number:</strong> No. 1-24-0446<br> <strong>Date Filed:</strong> June 2, 2025<br> <strong>Court:</strong> Appellate Court of Illinois, Firs...

Full Case Summary

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 240446

Case Number: No. 1-24-0446
Date Filed: June 2, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Jennel Hooper
Respondent: Richard Olds III

Background

Hooper and Olds were married on October 15, 2011, and had two minor children. Hooper filed for divorce on October 27, 2015, which was finalized on June 16, 2017. The appeal relates to a parental responsibility order issued by the Circuit Court of Cook County on January 31, 2024, in Olds's presence but without Hooper. Following this, Hooper's attorney filed an emergency motion to vacate the order on February 28, 2024.

Appeal Proceedings

Hooper filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 1, 2024, which the court initially recognized on April 2, 2024, staying all parenting issue resolutions. The trial court found the emergency motion to vacate not urgent and extended the response deadline for Olds. The court independently entertained Hooper's appeal as Olds did not submit a brief by the required deadline, in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 343(a).

Judgment

Decision: The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reason: The court determined that Hooper's appeal was premature due to a pending postjudgment motion. The trial court had not ruled on this timely filed motion, thus the appeal could not be heard until the postjudgment issues were resolved, as stipulated by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303.

Petitioner's Argument

Hooper contended that the trial court improperly assigned parental responsibility without adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. She emphasized the lack of an agreement regarding the parental responsibility order.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, reinforcing the requirement for a decision on the postjudgment motion before an appeal can proceed.

Download PDF Opinion Ask AI About This Case

Ask AI About This Case

Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Hooper? Ask our AI assistant below.