In re Marriage of Mapes, 2019 IL App (4th) 180096‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Mapes, No. 4‑18‑0096 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., Oct. 8, 2019) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Donald S. Mapes. Respondent‑Appellant: Donna J. Mapes.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a section 2‑1401 (735 ILCS 5/2‑1401) petition to vacate/modify a default divorce judgment was timely and sufficiently supported to state a claim for relief.
- Whether the trial court properly denied leave to amend the 2‑1401 petition to add factual allegations (fraud, mental incapacity, medication effects, failure to receive notice).
- Standards for pleading facts not of record, the required affidavit/supporting showing, due diligence, and availability of relief from default judgments.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It concluded the trial court did not err in dismissing Donna’s original 2‑1401 petition for failure to state a cause of action, but erred in denying her leave to amend. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court treated Donna’s original filing as legally deficient: it failed to plead facts outside the record with sufficient particularity (fraud, mistake, or excusable misconduct) or to include the necessary non‑record supporting showing/affidavit to establish entitlement to 2‑1401 relief. The trial court therefore correctly dismissed the pleading on that basis.
- However, the appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing leave to amend. Under Illinois practice, leave to amend should be freely granted absent undue delay, prejudice or futility; where a proffered amended 2‑1401 petition reasonably could state a claim (alleging fraud, mental incapacity/medication effects, interference with notice, and a showing of diligence), the court should permit amendment and permit development of the factual record rather than reject the claim without that opportunity.
- The opinion reiterates that 2‑1401 is unavailable merely to remedy a litigant’s negligence, but that properly pleaded allegations of fraud, incapacity, or lack of notice may support relief.

5) Practice implications
- When seeking 2‑1401 relief from a default divorce judgment, plead specific, non‑conclusory facts (dates, actors, documents) and attach or reference affidavits/declarations and documentary support showing matters not of record.
- If alleging mental incapacity or medication effects, give concrete medical facts, timelines, and corroboration (physician affidavits, records). If alleging fraud or interception of mail, plead specifics (who, when, how).
- Preserve requests for leave to amend and, if denied, preserve appellate review—trial courts should generally allow amendment unless amendment is futile or unduly prejudicial.
- Carefully calculate the two‑year 2‑1401 limitations period and comply with affidavit/formalities (e.g., section 1‑109 certifications).