In re Marriage of Medina, 2022 IL App (1st) 180536-U

Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Medina, 2022 IL App (1st) 180536‑U (1st Dist. Mar. 15, 2022).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Jose Luis Medina. Respondent: Josefina Medina. Appellant (third party): Jan Kowalski (former counsel for respondent).

Key legal issues
- Whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to review an order issuing a body attachment (and a subsequent commitment order remanding former counsel to sheriff custody) where the circuit court neither entered a judgment of contempt nor imposed a penalty.
- Whether the circuit court violated statutory due process for civil indirect contempt (notice and an opportunity to be heard/order to show cause) when issuing a body attachment sua sponte.

Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because the circuit court did not enter a judgment of contempt or impose a sanction, the attachment/commitment orders were not final, appealable judgments; therefore the appellate court could not consider the merits.

Significant legal reasoning
- The court emphasized the statutory procedure for civil body attachments: 735 ILCS 5/12‑107.5 requires that no body attachment or order of incarceration for indirect civil contempt issue unless the respondent first had an opportunity, after personal service, to appear and show cause — i.e., an order to show cause must be served. The record showed the circuit court named Kowalski a third party and issued a body attachment sua sponte for failure to appear and deliver a client file; no party had moved for a contempt finding.
- More importantly for appellate jurisdiction, the panel treated the attachment/commitment as not amounting to a final adjudication of contempt or imposition of a penalty. Under Rule 301 (final judgment) and Rule 304 (interlocutory appeals), Kowalski could not demonstrate an appealable final order; thus the court lacked jurisdiction and had to dismiss rather than reach the constitutional/procedural claims.
- The opinion also notes procedural defects in the record (no transcript), but deemed the common-law record sufficient for the jurisdictional determination.

Practice implications
- Enforcement against attorneys regarding client files should follow statutory contempt procedures: file an order to show cause, personally serve the third party, afford opportunity to be heard before issuing a body attachment.
- Courts should clearly enter adjudications of contempt and penalties if enforcement is intended and parties seeking appellate review should ensure a final, appealable order is entered.
- Counsel seeking relief (or defending against enforcement) must preserve a complete record (transcripts/agreements) and expressly pursue or contest contempt findings to create an appealable posture.