In re Marriage of Hurtado, 2021 IL App (2d) 190652-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hurtado, 2021 IL App (2d) 190652‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Mar. 2, 2021) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: Arturo Hurtado, Jr.; Respondent‑Appellee: Heather Hurtado.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to consider an untimely, successive post‑trial motion under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1203.
2. Whether a 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition properly challenged the dissolution judgment (i.e., whether alleged errors were the sort of fraud or mistake that §2‑1401 remedies, as opposed to judicial error or insufficient evidence).
3. Whether appellant’s appellate submissions and counsel conduct warranted sanctions.

- Holding / outcome
• The court dismissed the appeal as to the trial judge’s May 8, 2019 denial of a successive post‑trial motion (§2‑1203) for lack of jurisdiction.
• The court affirmed the denial, with prejudice, of appellant’s §2‑1401 petition by the trial court.
• The appellate court criticized counsel’s briefs as violating Supreme Court Rules, found the appeal taken in bad faith, and imposed sanctions.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
• Jurisdiction: After a post‑trial motion is ruled on, the trial court loses jurisdiction 30 days later to entertain further post‑judgment relief; there is no authority for filing a successive post‑trial motion more than a year after the judgment and after the initial post‑trial motion was adjudicated. Therefore the portion challenging the May 8, 2019 ruling was dismissed.
• §2‑1401 scope: §2‑1401 remedies fraud or mistake by a party (or mutual mistake), not judicial error. Allegations that the trial court misapplied facts, mischaracterized evidence (e.g., the HELOC reference), or reached an inequitable distribution are properly addressed by a timely post‑trial motion and appellate review of that ruling—not by §2‑1401. The petition here attacked judicial findings and re‑litigated equitable allocation without alleging the kind of proven fraud/mistake §2‑1401 requires; denial was therefore proper.
• Court procedure and evidence: The trial judge’s reliance on inferences was justified given appellant’s failure to file a closing argument, gaps in proof, and inconsistent presentation.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
• Do not substitute §2‑1401 for timely post‑trial relief—file timely §2‑1203 motions (and appeal) to preserve challenges to judicial findings. Successive, untimely motions risk dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Present a coherent trial record (closing argument, consistent exhibits) — courts may impute or infer facts against the party who fails to do so.
• Maintain professional advocacy and comply with Supreme Court Rules for appellate briefs; uncivil or rule‑violative filings can lead to sanctions and may taint appellate arguments.
• Use proper procedure for recusal motions and discrete allegations of fraud (plead and prove party fraud, not judicial error, in a §2‑1401 petition).