In re Marriage of Kruss, 2022 IL App (3d) 200525-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kruss, 2022 IL App (3d) 200525‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. July 27, 2022).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Darien M. Kruss. Respondent‑Appellant: Szilvia I. Kruss.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the Third District had appellate jurisdiction to review a Will County trial court’s order dismissing an “emergency motion” to modify a prior dissolution judgment (seeking return of a $15,000 alleged inheritance) and imposing Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 sanctions on respondent’s counsel.
- Relatedly, the collateral questions of finality, whether earlier Du Page County rulings on the inheritance claim had been finally resolved, and whether a later trial court could entertain another reconsideration.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of the trial court’s dismissal or the sanctions order.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court framed the dispute as jurisdictional: it concluded it could not exercise appellate review over the Will County orders at issue. The factual posture was complicated by prior proceedings — a Du Page County dissolution judgment and a December 2018 order denying relief on the inheritance issue, plus earlier appeals (including an earlier appeal by respondent dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction).
- At the Will County hearing the trial judge concluded respondent had had “two bites at the apple” (the trial and a motion to reconsider in Du Page) and that the emergency motion failed to adequately plead the precise relief requested or the jurisdictional basis to relitigate issues already addressed; the judge dismissed the emergency motion and awarded Rule 137 sanctions against counsel. The appellate court declined to reach the merits and dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

5. Practice implications (practical points for litigators)
- Confirm finality before appealing: appeals of orders that are nonfinal or otherwise non‑appealable will be dismissed; use Rule 304(a) language or interlocutory procedures where appropriate.
- Preserve and plead jurisdictional basis clearly when asking a different tribunal to revisit another court’s ruling (venue/retention of jurisdiction issues).
- Avoid re‑litigating issues already resolved on the record; courts may view repeated attempts to relitigate as sanctionable under Rule 137.
- When seeking emergency/extraordinary relief, expressly state the procedural posture and why relief is warranted now (and why appellate remedies are inadequate).
- If sanctioned, consider jurisdictional posture of the sanction order (some sanction orders are immediately appealable; others may not be) and seek appropriate remedies (motion to vacate, timely appeal when final, or supervisory relief).

(Note: Order filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 — nonprecedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).