In re Marriage of Paris, 2021 IL App (1st) 210828-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Paris, 2021 IL App (1st) 210828-U (1st Dist. Nov. 4, 2021) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Kerry Paris; Respondent-Appellant: Frank Martin Paris Jr.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly granted/maintained a temporary order giving the wife exclusive possession of the marital residence under 750 ILCS 5/501(c‑2) (order allowed only where occupancy by both spouses jeopardizes the physical or mental well‑being of a spouse or children).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the husband’s motions (filed in 2021) to dissolve that injunction on grounds the original basis (home repairs/safety) no longer existed.
- Jurisdictional/timeliness: whether earlier appellate challenge to the January 30, 2020 order was timely under Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband’s motions to dissolve the temporary exclusive‑possession order.
- The court also concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the original January 30, 2020 order because the husband’s first interlocutory appeal was untimely under Rule 307(a)(1).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: Rule 307(a) requires perfection of interlocutory appeals within 30 days; the husband’s March/June 2020 attempts were untimely (earlier appeal due March 2, 2020); a motion to reconsider does not toll the Rule 307 clock. Thus, appellate review was limited to the June 9, 2021 denial of the motion to dissolve.
- Substance: the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, credited testimony about how the husband’s conduct (and misuse of the prior “nesting” arrangement) endangered the wife and children, and found that rescinding exclusive possession would “lead to serious endangerment.” The repair/remediation of physical defects was not dispositive because the serious‑endangerment inquiry centers on current jeopardy (including behavioral dynamics), and credibility findings are for the trial court. Abuse‑of‑discretion review applied.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- File Rule 307 interlocutory notices promptly (30 days); motions to reconsider do not toll the appeal window.
- When seeking or defending exclusive possession under §501(c‑2), build the record on (a) specific jeopardy to physical/mental well‑being, (b) evidence of coercive/control dynamics, and (c) balancing of hardships to both parties and children.
- Physical remediation of hazards may not alone defeat exclusive‑possession relief if the court finds risk from co‑occupancy persists; credibility and detailed factual hearings are decisive.
- Preserve a full evidentiary record on changed circumstances if later moving to dissolve an injunction; address alternative housing and financial hardship in the hardship balance.