In re Marriage of Musiejuk, 2023 IL App (1st) 221097-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Musiejuk, No. 1-22-1097, 2023 IL App (1st) 221097‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Aug. 18, 2023) (Rule 23 order; not precedent).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Radoslaw Musiejuk (pro se). Respondent‑Appellee: Anna Musiejuk.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in modifying child support and allocating post‑secondary education expenses despite an incorporated marital settlement agreement (MSA).
- Procedural/timeliness issues: adequacy of notice of appeal and whether portions of the appeal were untimely.
- Whether the appellant preserved issues and supplied an adequate record and appellate brief per Illinois rules.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court declined to reach the merits because appellant (1) failed to timely and adequately present issues, (2) forfeited arguments by noncompliance with briefing rules, and (3) did not provide a sufficiently complete record (no transcripts). The trial court’s May 31, 2022 order (reduced monthly child support to $536, payment plan to address arrearage of $7,016.52, and allocation of one child’s college costs) was affirmed.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction/timeliness: The court addressed Rule 303; appellant’s late‑notice motion was granted as to the May 31, 2022 order under Rule 303(d), but earlier matters (e.g., alleged cash payment issues finalized in Feb. 2021) were untimely.
- Appellate preservation and briefing: Under Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), an appellant’s brief must contain reasoned argument with citations to the record; pro se status does not relax these requirements. Vague or undeveloped claims were forfeited.
- Record requirement: Pursuant to Foutch v. O’Bryant, an appellant must present a sufficiently complete record to support error claims; absent transcripts, the trial court’s rulings are presumed correct.
- Substantive law reminder: The court reiterated that trial courts retain authority to modify child support terms contained in MSAs (Blisset; 750 ILCS 5/510, 513) and that such modifications are reviewed for abuse of discretion (Rogers), but did not reach abuse‑of‑discretion analysis because of procedural/default grounds.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Do not rely on pro se status: comply strictly with Rules 303 and 341.
- File timely notices of appeal; if late, timely move under Rule 303(d) with a proposed notice.
- Appellate briefs must contain reasoned arguments and precise citations to record pages and authorities — failure to do so forfeits issues.
- Provide complete record (including transcripts) or accepted substitutes; absent them, appellate review will be precluded.
- Remember MSAs can be modified as to child support; preserve factual and legal record if challenging modifications (post‑trial motions, transcript requests, and targeted assignments of error).