In re Marriage of Montana, 2022 IL App (1st) 190605-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Montana, No. 1-19-0605, 2022 IL App (1st) 190605-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Jan. 28, 2022) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner–Appellee: Vito Montana. Respondent–Appellant: Natalia Vildziuniene. (Order filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23 — non-precedential.)

- Key legal issues
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a dissolution judgment when cross‑petitions for contribution to attorney fees under 750 ILCS 5/503(j) and 5/508(b) remained pending when the notice of appeal was filed; whether unresolved attorney‑fee petitions render a dissolution order non‑final absent an express Rule 304(a) finding.

- Holding/outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The December 5, 2018 dissolution order and the February 27, 2019 denial of reconsideration were not final and appealable because the parties’ attorney‑fee petitions remained pending and the orders did not contain a Rule 304(a) finding.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied settled Illinois law that a dissolution action is a single claim and ancillary issues (property division, support, attorney fees) are part of that claim (citing Leopando). Requests for attorney fees in a pending dissolution are not independent actions; they are integral to the overall divorce proceeding (citing King, Tomei). Because unresolved fee petitions meant the litigation was not finally determined, the subject orders were interlocutory. Rule 301/303 timing principles and Rule 304(a) (requiring an express written finding no just reason to delay enforcement/appeal for partial final judgments) control. The appellate court has a duty to consider jurisdictional defects and reviews such issues de novo. The absence of Rule 304(a) language and the pendency of fee petitions deprived the court of jurisdiction.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Do not appeal a dissolution judgment while ancillary matters (especially fee petitions under §§ 503(j)/508(b)) remain unresolved unless the trial court enters an express Rule 304(a) certification.
- If a party wants immediate appealability of discrete parts of a ruling, obtain a written Rule 304(a) finding at entry of judgment.
- When drafting dissolution orders that “reserve” fee issues, be aware reservation prevents finality; consider separate adjudication/bifurcation or clear Rule 304(a) language if immediate appeal is intended.
- Counsel should track and resolve all postjudgment motions (or await disposition) before filing a notice of appeal; appellate courts will dismiss for want of jurisdiction even if the appeal raises substantive errors.