In re Marriage of Padilla, 2019 IL App (1st) 182267-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Padilla, No. 1-18-2267, 2019 IL App (1st) 182267-U (1st Dist. June 27, 2019). Petitioner/Counterrespondent: Martha Padilla. Respondent/Counterpetitioner-Appellant: Robert Kowalski.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the October 17, 2018 order from which respondent appealed was an interlocutory order granting or denying injunctive relief and therefore appealable; 2) whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear respondent’s appeal of denials/dispositions related to his petitions for substitution of judge for cause (735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3)) and related procedural orders.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held the October 17, 2018 order was not an interlocutory injunctive order as respondent claimed, so the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court limited its review to the sparse record provided. It explained that Illinois appellate jurisdiction for interlocutory appeals is narrowly circumscribed (e.g., Supreme Court Rule 307 and statutory authority) and applies to orders that grant, modify, or refuse injunctive relief. The October 17, 2018 order at issue merely revived and scheduled nonparty motions to quash subpoenas (and corrected a hearing date); it did not grant or deny equitable relief or resolve substantial rights in a manner that triggers interlocutory review. Because the order was not an injunction (and no other basis for interlocutory appeal or finality was shown), the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The opinion also notes the procedural backdrop — extensive, repetitive substitution petitions and prior appellate rulings — but the dismissal rested on appealability/jurisdiction grounds and the insufficiency of the record to support respondent’s characterization of the order.

- Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Do not assume scheduling or procedural orders (date corrections, revival of motions, status settings) are immediately appealable as injunctions; appellate jurisdiction is narrow.
- When seeking interlocutory appellate review, identify and plead the specific statutory or rule-based basis for appealability and ensure the order actually grants/denies injunctive relief or otherwise fits an appealable category.
- Preserve a complete record showing the substance of the challenged order and timely service; sparse records will often defeat jurisdictional arguments.
- Repeated or last-minute petitions for substitution of judge are vulnerable to denial on procedural grounds; serve opposing counsel and comply with local practice to avoid forfeiture.