In re Marriage of Mehic, 2023 IL App (1st) 220287-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Mehic, No. 1‑22‑0287, 2023 IL App (1st) 220287‑U (Ill. App. Feb. 17, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Elmedina Mehic. Respondent‑Appellant: Muhidin Mehic.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction to adjudicate an indirect civil contempt petition where the respondent contends he was not served with the petition or the show‑cause order.
2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating respondent in indirect civil contempt and ordering commitment.
3) Appellate briefing/record sufficiency issues affecting review.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It held respondent waived any service defect by voluntarily appearing and participating in the contempt proceedings; personal jurisdiction attached. Because the appellant failed to provide a complete record and complied poorly with Rule 341, the court presumed the trial court acted properly. The contempt adjudication and commitment order were affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Waiver by appearance: Although special process attempts to serve the rule to show cause were unsuccessful, respondent appeared with counsel at hearings and litigated the matter; appearance and participation waived any objection to lack of formal service, so personal jurisdiction attached.
- Finality/appealability: The contempt adjudication that imposed a sanction (commitment) was final and appealable under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5).
- Record and briefing deficiencies: Appellant’s brief violated Rule 341 (inadequate Points & Authorities, missing appendix/table of contents); the appellate record omitted key filings (e.g., motion to reconsider). Where the record is incomplete, appellate courts presume the trial court’s rulings had a sufficient factual and legal basis, limiting meaningful appellate relief.
- Merits: Trial court found willful nonpayment ($11,286 arrears), lack of credible financial disclosures, failure to meet purge conditions; court’s credibility and discretionary findings were upheld.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Service objections can be waived by voluntary appearance — if a client intends to preserve a service/personal‑jurisdiction defense, do not appear substantively without explicitly preserving the objection.
- In contempt/collection matters, ensure contemporaneous compliance with discovery/financial disclosure and purge conditions (payments, insurance) — failure supports willfulness findings.
- For appeals, strictly comply with Supreme Court Rules (Rule 341) and provide a complete record (include motions, notices, transcripts, orders). Missing materials severely handicap appellate review.
- When seeking contempt relief, the court may impose coercive confinement until purge; such orders are immediately appealable under Rule 304(b)(5).
- Note: this opinion is Rule 23 non‑precedential and therefore of limited precedential value.