In re Marriage of Medina, 2019 IL App (1st) 180850‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jose Luis Medina and Josefina Medina, No. 1‑18‑0850 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Sept. 30, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Jose Luis Medina. Respondent/Original client: Josefina Medina. Appellant: Jan Kowalski (attorney for Josefina).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 137 sanctions against counsel (Kowalski) for filing allegedly false and dilatory motions.
- Whether counsel was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard before sanctions were entered.
- Whether the trial court properly struck counsel’s petition for final fees and motion to reconsider for failure to obtain leave to file as required by an earlier court order.
- Appellate preservation: sufficiency of the record to challenge sanction proceedings.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s Rule 137 sanctions (order awarding $11,427.50) and the striking of Kowalski’s petition for final fees and motion to reconsider.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court emphasized the appellant’s burden to produce a complete record on appeal. Kowalski failed to provide transcripts or a bystander’s report of the sanction hearing(s); therefore many factual assertions about notice and the hearing could not be reviewed (applicable Foutch principle).
- The common‑law record and written orders showed repeated findings by the trial court that counsel and client repeatedly stalled the sale of marital property, filed motions to reconsider that the court characterized as not well grounded/were false pleadings, and failed to comply with court orders. Many orders expressly noted Kowalski’s presence (or absence) and warned that sanctions or contempt could follow.
- The trial court had previously entered an order requiring Josefina (and counsel) to obtain leave before filing further documents; Kowalski did not seek such leave before filing her fee petition and motion to reconsider, so striking those filings was appropriate.
- Absent an adequate appellate record, sanctions are presumed properly calculated and imposed.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Preserve the record: obtain transcripts or a bystander’s report when challenging sanctions or procedural rulings.
- Rule 137 obligations: conduct reasonable factual and legal inquiry before filing; repetitive, dilatory, or false pleadings risk personal sanctions.
- Comply with court orders (including leave‑to‑file restrictions); failure to do so can lead to striking of filings and other sanctions.
- Courts will scrutinize counsel conduct in protracted family litigation (especially obstruction of property transfers); sanctions can be assessed against counsel personally.
- Reminder: this is a Rule 23, non‑precedential order — persuasive but not binding.