In re Marriage of Parmenter, 2023 IL App (4th) 220439‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Parmenter, No. 4‑22‑0439 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., Feb. 24, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Lisa Parmenter (f/k/a Lisa N. Jones). Respondent‑Appellant: Aaron M. Jones.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a 2‑1401 petition filed more than two years after entry of a judgment may avoid the statutory limitation by alleging the judgment was procured by fraud and therefore is void.
- Whether the trial court obtained subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction (i.e., whether alleged fraud rendered jurisdiction merely “colorable” such that the JDOM and subsequent orders were void).
- Standards for dismissal under section 2‑615/2‑619 where a 2‑1401 petition alleges fraud.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed respondent’s second amended 2‑1401 motion to vacate as time‑barred. The petition failed to allege extrinsic fraud that would render the judgment void and therefore escape the two‑year limitation.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Section 2‑1401 provides the exclusive vehicle to attack final judgments after 30 days and contains a two‑year filing limitation (absent a void judgment). Void judgments may be attacked at any time but only where there is a total want of jurisdiction (subject matter or personal).
- Only extrinsic fraud—fraud that prevents a party from presenting their case or otherwise deprives the court of real jurisdiction—renders a judgment void. Intrinsic fraud (perjury, forged evidence, misrepresentations occurring after jurisdiction attached) makes a judgment voidable, not void.
- Here Aaron had signed a notarized “Appearance and Consent” (waiving service and consenting to immediate proceedings), was served with the JDOM, and actively participated in litigation for years. His pleadings admitted his signature and participation. The alleged forgery/change in child‑support figures did not allege extrinsic fraud that prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction. Consequently, the two‑year 2‑1401 limitation applied and dismissal was proper under section 2‑619 standards (courts accept pleaded facts and construe in non‑movant’s favor, but may dismiss where law bars relief).

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Distinguish extrinsic vs intrinsic fraud at the outset: only proven extrinsic fraud defeats statutes of limitation for collateral attack. Claims of forgery or miscalculation must plead and document how the opposing conduct deprived the court of jurisdiction or prevented participation.
- Timeliness matters: bring 2‑1401 challenges promptly—do not wait years while litigating under the contested orders. Active participation in proceedings undermines later claims of lack of jurisdiction.
- When defending, obtain and rely on appearances/consents, service proof, and litigation record to support dismissal under section 2‑619. When alleging fraud, preserve contemporaneous evidence (forensic reports, proof of lack of notice, or proof you were prevented from appearing).