In re Marriage of Krier, 2022 IL App (3d) 210148‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Krier, 2022 IL App (3d) 210148‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., June 10, 2022).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Christine Krier. Respondent‑Appellant: Joseph Krier. (Order filed under Sup. Ct. R. 23 — nonprecedential.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the circuit court erred in entering (a) an agreed order modifying child support and imposing $7,500 Rule 137 attorney‑fee sanctions, and (b) orders (and sanctions) underlying an indirect civil contempt finding for failure to pay child support, accrued interest, and the Rule 137 award.
- Whether the indirect civil contempt proceedings comported with minimal due‑process protections required before finding a party in contempt.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court held the circuit court did not err in entering the underlying orders (the child support modification and Rule 137 sanctions).
- However, the court concluded the indirect civil contempt proceedings did not afford minimum due process protections. The contempt adjudication was therefore partially vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with due process.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Substantive orders: Because the February 25, 2019 order (increase to $600/month child support, retroactive relief, and $7,500 to petitioner’s attorney as Rule 137 sanctions) was entered with the parties’ agreement and was not shown to be legally infirm on the record, the appellate court declined to upset those orders.
- Procedural due process: The court emphasized that civil contempt requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. At the Zoom hearing that produced the contempt finding, Joseph (self‑represented) was absent though the court concluded he had notice; the court received only petitioner’s testimony, then issued the rule and shifted the burden in his absence. The appellate court found that procedure failed to satisfy minimal due process — a respondent must be given a fair chance to contest factual allegations before being adjudged in contempt (particularly where fines, interest, potential incarceration or coercive sanctions are at stake).
- Prior appellate dismissal of an earlier appeal (for procedural noncompliance) did not supply the necessary procedural protections for the contempt adjudication.

5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- Do not adjudicate indirect civil contempt without clear proof of adequate notice and an on‑the‑record opportunity for the accused to be present, present evidence, and cross‑examine witnesses. Merely proceeding because a party “knew” of a date risks reversal.
- When seeking Rule 137 sanctions, secure a clear record explaining the basis for the award; an agreed order carries weight but clarity avoids later attack.
- For remote (Zoom) hearings, document service/notice, method of communication, and any waiver of presence; if a party is absent, expressly confirm they knowingly waived appearance on the record before shifting burdens or entering contempt.
- If seeking contempt for unpaid support and related sanctions, ensure issuance of a proper rule to show cause and contemporaneous findings before entering coercive penalties; otherwise, expect remand and retrial of the contempt issues.