In re Marriage of Kent, 2021 IL App (2d) 200637-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kent, 2021 IL App (2d) 200637‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. June 7, 2021).
- Petitioner: Colleen Kent; Respondent-Appellee: Luis Cortez; Appellant: Douglas P. Trent (attorney for Colleen).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court properly denied counsel’s section 2‑619 motion to dismiss a Rule 137 sanctions motion as untimely.
- Whether counsel may be sanctioned under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 for post‑judgment filings that were withdrawn and for filing petitions for fees against a client while still counsel of record.
- Applicable standard of review for timeliness/amendment and sanctions.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Trent’s motion to dismiss and affirmed a $5,000 Rule 137 sanction against Trent.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Timeliness/Amendment: The court concluded Luis’s July 17, 2020 Rule 137 motion was an amended version of a timely‑filed 2019 Rule 137 motion and therefore not barred by Rule 137(b)’s 30‑day filing window. The panel relied on Panel Built, Inc. v. De Kalb County, noting a trial court has discretion to permit amendment of a sanctions motion and that an amended motion that relates back is not a new, untimely filing.
- Sanctions merits: The trial court found Trent filed multiple post‑judgment petitions (including petitions for attorney fees and consent judgment) while still counsel of record and without leave to withdraw (citing 750 ILCS 5/508(c)(1)), then withdrew several motions on the day of hearing. The court determined those filings were not well grounded in fact or law, were not raised on appeal, and caused needless increase in litigation costs—satisfying Rule 137’s prohibition on filings made for harassment or to increase litigation costs. Withdrawn filings do not immunize counsel from sanctions.
- Distinctions: The opinion distinguishes decisions rejecting timeliness where the later motion was a new claim or targeted new parties (Short, Lakeshore), rather than an amendment to a prior sanctions motion.
- Standard of review: While denial of a 2‑619 dismissal is reviewed de novo, sanctions under Rule 137 are reviewed for abuse of discretion; the court found no abuse.

5. Practice implications
- Do not file fee petitions against your own client while still counsel of record without seeking and obtaining leave to withdraw.
- Avoid meritless or dilatory post‑judgment filings; withdrawn motions can still trigger Rule 137 sanctions if they needlessly increase opponent’s costs.
- If pursuing sanctions, preserve an early, timely sanctions filing or obtain court leave to amend; document opposing counsel’s expenses to support an award.
- Be mindful of local rules (e.g., page limits) and the interplay of Rule 304(a)/appellate mandates when timing post‑judgment motions and sanctions practice.