In re Marriage of Nacanabo, 2019 IL App (1st) 172680-U

In re Marriage of Nacanabo, 2019 IL App (1st) 172680‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Nacanabo, No. 1‑17‑2680 (1st Dist. May 15, 2019) (Rule 23 order, not precedent).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Benequende Ousmane Nacanabo. Respondent‑Appellant: Aissata Djire.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the denial of respondent’s 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition attacking a prior relocation order.
- Proper content and effect of a notice of appeal (liberal construction vs. specificity requirement).
- Effect of dismissal of an earlier appeal for want of prosecution on subsequent attempts to challenge the same judgment.
- Applicability of Rule 304(a)(6) deadline for appeals from orders modifying parental responsibilities.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The October 31, 2017 notice of appeal did not fairly and adequately identify the October 4, 2017 denial of the 2‑1401 petition; it appealed an October 30, 2017 order instead. The earlier October 18, 2017 appeal (which did challenge the 2‑1401 denial) had already been dismissed for want of prosecution and was not revivable.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Appellate jurisdiction is conferred only as to the judgments specified in the notice of appeal; courts must independently ascertain jurisdiction. While notices are liberally construed (In re Marriage of O’Brien; Burtell), a notice that expressly refers to a different judgment cannot be read to invoke review of an unlisted order (People v. Smith).
- The relocation order (Oct. 19, 2016) modified parental responsibilities (parenting time) and was appealable under Rule 304(a)(6); Djire failed to appeal that order within the required period.
- Djire’s April 2017 2‑1401 petition was denied Oct. 4, 2017 and she initially filed a timely Oct. 18 notice of appeal—but that appeal was dismissed for failure to file the record. After dismissal, the appellate court lacked power to resurrect or review that denial; a later notice (Oct. 31) addressing different orders could not substitute for the lost appeal (Lyles).

5. Practice implications
- Draft notices of appeal with precision: include the exact judgment date(s) and describe the specific orders and relief sought. Liberal construction will not salvage a notice that identifies a different judgment.
- Appeal custody/parenting modifications within the Rule 304(a)(6) timeframe.
- If you initiate an appeal, prosecute it (file the record) or timely seek extensions/reconsideration—dismissal for want of prosecution is fatal and cannot be revived.
- When challenging a 2‑1401 denial, ensure your notice explicitly references that denial and any underlying judgment you seek to vacate; maintain attention to sequencing where multiple post‑judgment motions and orders exist.