In re Marriage of Padilla, 2022 IL App (1st) 200815

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Padilla, 2022 IL App (1st) 200815. Petitioner/Counterrespondent: Martha Padilla. Respondent/Counterpetitioner-Appellant: Robert Kowalski. First District, Third Division; judgment affirmed (May 11, 2022).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court had jurisdiction/statutory authority to appoint an emergency receiver over respondent’s estate in a dissolution proceeding.
2) Whether the court abused its discretion in appointing a receiver and granting broad powers (including sheriff assistance and control of assets/income).
3) Whether the receiver order improperly enjoined or prevented respondent from pursuing a statutorily authorized substitution-of-judge petition.
4) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal (Rule 307).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s appointment of a receiver and related orders. It also rejected respondent’s claim that the receiver order improperly enjoined his substitution-of-judge petition. The appeal was properly before the court under Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(2),(3).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Appellate jurisdiction: Orders appointing receivers and granting additional powers are appealable interlocutory orders under Rule 307; appealable here.
- Standard of review: Jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo; appointment of a receiver reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The record (and judicially noticeable docket/prior opinions) showed long, protracted dissolution litigation, respondent’s bankruptcy, alleged concealment of assets, criminal indictment allegations, a prior sanction for false financial affidavit, and an asserted settlement/transfer relevant to marital assets. Those facts supported emergency relief to preserve assets and enforce the judgment.
- The receivership order was narrowly framed to permit custody/control of respondent’s assets, income streams, and access (including electronic devices) to effectuate turnover; trial court did not improperly enjoin the substitution petition. The substitution petition itself failed to comply with statutory requirements and did not prevent entry of the emergency receivership.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Receiverships remain a viable, emergency remedy in dissolutions where there is credible evidence of asset concealment, noncompliance with support/property orders, bankruptcy issues, or risk of dissipation. Draft pleadings to show exigency and specific asset risk.
- Orders should clearly describe receiver powers and procedures for enforcement (e.g., sheriff assistance, turnover).
- Challenge to judicial assignments must meet statutory/formal requirements; repeated or procedurally deficient substitution petitions will not block remedial relief.
- Interlocutory appeals under Rule 307 are available for receiver orders—move promptly and preserve the record (include exhibits/hearing transcripts).