In re Marriage of Joseph J., 2024 IL App (4th) 230800-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Joseph J., 2024 IL App (4th) 230800-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Joseph J.; Respondent-Appellee: Jessica D. (Sangamon County No. 17D626).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly found the parties reached a binding oral settlement/modification of the parenting plan at an April 24, 2023 settlement conference.
2. Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the trial court’s June 21, 2023 order enforcing that agreement.
3. Whether the appellant preserved an adequate record for appellate review.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court. It rejected respondent’s jurisdictional attack as meritless but affirmed primarily because appellant failed to present a sufficiently complete record (no hearing transcripts), preventing effective appellate review of his claims.

- Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Jurisdiction: The court explained Rule 303/304 principles. The June 21 order enforcing the alleged April oral agreement lacked an express Rule 304(a) special finding and was not appealable under 304(b)(6) as a final modification of parental responsibilities because issues (school-year parenting time) remained unresolved until August. The appellant’s later notice of appeal was thus judged against the final disposition timetable.
- Enforceability of oral settlement: The trial court’s factual finding that an agreement was reached in court and that the agreed terms were “definite and certain” is central to enforcement of oral settlements in family cases — an oral agreement made in presence of the court can be binding even if some discrete issues are reserved.
- Record adequacy: The dispositive appellate point was procedural: appellant supplied no hearing transcripts (only docket entries). The appellate court reiterated that the appellant bears the burden to provide a record showing reversible error; absent a transcript, the trial court’s factual findings are presumed correct and the appellate court cannot meaningfully review claimed errors.

- Practice implications (brief)
- For trial counsel: when resolving family matters by agreement, place material terms on the record in open court, obtain a signed written agreement or agreed order promptly, and secure a court colloquy confirming parties’ assent to avoid later disputes.
- For appeals: preserve and include complete transcripts of settlement conferences, hearings, and any colloquy — docket entries are insufficient. If seeking interlocutory review, obtain and journalize a Rule 304(a) special finding where appropriate.
- For litigants: disputes about counsel authority and meeting of the minds should be expressly recorded at the time of any compromise to prevent evidentiary ambiguity on appeal.