In re Marriage of Paris, 2021 IL App (1st) 200769-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Paris, 2021 IL App (1st) 200769‑U (1st Dist. Mar. 25, 2021).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Kerry Paris. Respondent‑Appellant: Frank Martin Paris Jr.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s temporary award of exclusive possession of the marital residence constituted an appealable interlocutory injunction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1).
- Whether the appellant’s notice of interlocutory appeal was timely (Rule 307(a) 30‑day requirement) and whether a motion to reconsider tolled that deadline or functioned as a motion to dissolve/modify the injunction.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court held the January 30, 2020 order granting temporary exclusive possession was an appealable injunctive order, but the appellant’s June 17, 2020 notice of interlocutory appeal was untimely (deadline was March 2, 2020). A post‑order motion to reconsider did not toll the Rule 307 deadline and was not equivalent to a motion to dissolve/modify the injunction.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court distinguished ministerial/administrative visitation conditions (In re Marriage of Eckersall) from injunctive orders that affect the parties’ everyday activities. Because the order excluded the husband from a residence he partly owned and granted the wife exclusive possession, it affected non‑litigation daily life and thus qualified as an injunction (citing In re Marriage of Blitstein).
- Under Supreme Court Rule 307(a), interlocutory appeals of injunctions must be perfected within 30 days of the order; the 30th day falling on a weekend moved the deadline to March 2, 2020. The appellant filed on June 17, 2020.
- Multiple precedents establish that a motion to reconsider in a civil case does not toll the 30‑day Rule 307 deadline and that the substance, not the label, of the motion controls. Here the motion sought reconsideration of errors in law/application, not expressly to dissolve or modify the injunction; thus it did not restart the appeal clock.

5. Practice implications
- Treat temporary exclusive possession orders as appealable injunctions under Rule 307(a)(1) and calendar the 30‑day deadline precisely (account for weekends/holidays).
- Do not assume a motion to reconsider tolls the Rule 307 appeal period; if intending immediate interlocutory review, file a Rule 307 notice within 30 days even while litigating post‑judgment motions, or explicitly move to dissolve/modify the injunction (and seek a timely appeal if denied).
- If relief is urgent, concurrently seek a stay and prepare a prompt appellate record to preserve jurisdictional options.