In re Marriage of Morgan, 2019 IL App (3d) 180560

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Morgan, 2019 IL App (3d) 180560 (May 29, 2019). Petitioner-Appellee: Geri T. Morgan (n/k/a Geri T. Fox). Respondent-Appellant: Michael S. Morgan.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to review an interlocutory denial of a motion to substitute a judge for cause (735 ILCS 5/2‑1001(a)(3)).
- Whether a trial court’s written notation that a ruling is “appealable pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304 and other applicable rules” satisfies the express written‑finding requirement of Supreme Court Rule 304(a).

3. Holding/outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Third District held the trial court’s order failed to satisfy Rule 304(a)’s express written‑finding requirement and that denial of a substitution motion is interlocutory and not rendered final merely by adding Rule 304(a) language.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Rule 304(a) requires an express written finding that “there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both” (or, per later commentary, explicit reference to enforcement or appeal); mere boilerplate or vague references do not suffice.
- The trial court judge who denied the substitution (Judge Dow) stated on the record she was referring to Rule 308(a) and did not include the required Rule 304(a) language in the written order; the written order only generically stated the ruling was “appealable pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304 and other applicable rules.”
- The court distinguished cases where the exact language or clear intent appears in the record (which can sometimes cure technical defects), and concluded that here neither the order nor the record manifested the requisite intent or express finding.
- The court reiterated that the denial of a motion to substitute a judge for cause is interlocutory; it cannot be transformed into a final, appealable order simply by inserting Rule 304(a) language.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Trial judges and practitioners must use precise Rule 304(a) language if they intend to permit an immediate appeal: include an express, written finding that “there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both” (or otherwise clearly invoke enforcement/appeal per Rule 304 commentary).
- Do not rely on boilerplate statements that an order is “appealable” or on ambiguous references to “other rules.”
- When seeking review of a substitution denial, consider seeking a clear Rule 304(a) certification from the trial court (with the exact language) or pursue alternative remedies (e.g., supervisory relief) because interlocutory substitution denials are not appealable as of right without proper certification.