In re Marriage of Kiamco, 2025 IL App (3d) 230249-U

In re Marriage of Kiamco, 2025 IL App (3d) 230249-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kiamco, 2025 IL App (3d) 230249-U (Order filed Jan. 14, 2025) (Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Robin Kiamco. Respondent‑Appellant: Vickie Kiamco.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court violated the ADA and the Fourteenth Amendment by “forcing” respondent to proceed pro se and failing to provide disability accommodations.
- Whether the trial court exhibited judicial bias against respondent.
- Whether the trial court’s income finding as to petitioner was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the appellate court could review post‑decree actions (alleged withholding of transcripts/fee waivers and purported unauthorized modifications of the decree).

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the dissolution judgment in part and dismissed part of the appeal.
- Respondent failed to present a sufficiently complete record to support her claims of ADA violation, due‑process bias, or that the income finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence — those challenges were rejected.
- The court lacked jurisdiction to consider challenges arising from post‑decree proceedings; those portions of the appeal were dismissed.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Record completeness: The court emphasized that appellate review is limited to the record presented. Respondent did not supply the necessary transcripts/documents to support claims that the trial court refused accommodations, exhibited bias, or erred on income findings. Without a full record, the appellate court will not infer reversible error.
- ADA/due process: The opinion notes the need for concrete evidence in the trial record that accommodations were requested and denied (or that the court affirmatively prevented representation), which was not shown here.
- Judicial bias: Claims of bias require specific, preserved instances (or an adequate record); respondent’s submissions were insufficient.
- Income finding: Given discovery and evidentiary exchanges detailed in the record (discovery orders, financial affidavits, subpoenas, tax issues), respondent failed to demonstrate the trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Jurisdictional limits: Post‑decree acts (alleged transcript/fee‑waiver withholding and modifications) were not properly before this appeal; appellate jurisdiction was lacking for those disputes.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve the record: obtain and include transcripts, orders, and exhibits for all contested hearings; without them, appellate arguments (bias, ADA non‑accommodation, evidentiary weight) are likely to fail.
- ADA accommodations: make timely, documented requests in the trial court, and create a contemporaneous objection/record if accommodations are denied.
- Self‑representation: when counsel withdraws, seek continuances, appointment, or explicit court accommodation orders and preserve objections.
- Income disputes: contemporaneously secure financial discovery, forensic/account valuations, and rulings on admissibility to enable meaningful appellate review.
- Post‑decree disputes: pursue separate appeals or appropriate motions and ensure appellate jurisdiction before raising post‑decree complaints on a final‑judgment appeal.