In re Marriage of Parmar, 2023 IL App (1st) 211339-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Parmar, No. 1-21-1339, 2023 IL App (1st) 211339-U (Ill. App. Ct. May 26, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner/Counter-Respondent-Appellant: Paminder S. Parmar. Respondent/Counter-Petitioner-Appellee: Karishma K. Rai. (Judgment affirmed by a 2–1 panel; Justice Tailor dissented.)

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to vacate a default dissolution judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1301(e).
2) Whether the default should be set aside for lack of notice or loss of jurisdiction due to the parties’ residence in California.

- Holding / Outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Parmar’s 2‑1301(e) motion. The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that substantial justice had been done between the parties.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard: Relief under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1301(e) is discretionary; courts evaluate whether “substantial justice” would be achieved by vacating the default. Movant need not prove a meritorious defense, but courts weigh diligence, existence of a meritorious defense, severity of the penalty, and relative hardship.
- Facts: Parmar’s counsel withdrew Nov. 2020; Parmar failed to file a pro se or substitute appearance within the 21‑day period and did not participate for ~6 months. A default order was entered May 18, 2021 and a prove‑up/default dissolution judgment entered June 1, 2021. Parmar moved to vacate June 30, 2021 claiming he believed the parties were reconciling while living in California and that he lacked notice and the court lacked jurisdiction.
- Court’s view: Extensive prior litigation, Parmar’s initiation of the case, emails showing awareness, and the lengthy unexplained delay counseled against relief. The trial court found Parmar had ample notice and opportunity to protect his rights; under the totality of circumstances substantial justice favored denying relief. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion.

- Practice implications for family practitioners
- When counsel withdraws, clients must file a pro se or substitute appearance promptly (Supreme Court rule/21‑day practice); failure risks default and significant orders (custody, large asset allocations, attorney‑fee awards).
- Living in another state or informal “reconciliation” is a weak excuse absent timely, documented steps to protect legal rights. Preserve evidence of actual lack of notice if claiming it.
- Move to vacate promptly and develop a record on diligence, notice, jurisdiction, and any meritorious defenses; but be prepared that courts prioritize stability in child matters and timely resolution.
- Email communications can be used by courts as proof of awareness/notice.