In re Marriage of Pavlovich, 2019 IL App (1st) 172859

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Pavlovich, 2019 IL App (1st) 172859 (Apr. 16, 2019). Petitioner-Appellee: Slobodan Pavlovich. Respondent-Appellant: Aneta Pavlovich.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing respondent’s counsel (Hoffenberg & Block) to withdraw shortly before trial in violation of Ill. S. Ct. Rule 13 and without continuing the trial.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying respondent’s request for a section 604.10(b) evaluator (mental-health/child best-interest evaluation).
3. Whether the trial court’s finding of indirect contempt for leasing the marital condo prior to refinancing was lawful and whether respondent received required procedural protections (civil vs. criminal contempt distinction).

- Holding / outcome
- Appeal No. 1-17-2859 (dissolution issues): Affirmed — withdrawal of counsel and denial of 604.10(b) evaluation were upheld.
- Appeal No. 1-18-0185 (contempt): Reversed — the contempt finding was vacated.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Rule 13/withdrawal: although Rule 13(c) contemplates notice and a 21‑day period for a party to retain substitute counsel (and courts normally avoid ruling on matters that prejudice a party during that period), the appellate court concluded respondent waived her Rule 13 challenge. The record on appeal lacked transcripts of the withdrawal hearing and trial, and respondent failed to demonstrate prejudice or preserve the record necessary to show reversible error. The court emphasized that absent an adequate record, rulings are presumed regular.
- 604.10(b) evaluator: the denial was reviewed for abuse of discretion. Because the hearing transcript was not in the record, appellate review was constrained; respondent failed to show the trial court abused its discretion.
- Contempt: the appellate court reversed the contempt finding. The opinion identifies procedural infirmities (the trial court’s handling raised issues about whether the proceeding had the attributes of criminal contempt without affording criminal-contempt protections). Because those procedural protections were not observed and the record did not support affirming the contempt disposition, reversal was required.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Preserve the record: include transcripts and all relevant orders when appealing; failure to do so usually waives claims.
- Rule 13 compliance: counsel seeking to withdraw should give reasonable notice and courts should be sensitive to the 21‑day substitution period; conversely, clients must promptly file a supplementary appearance if counsel withdraws.
- 604.10(b) motions: support requests for evaluators with a clear factual record showing need; absent a developed record, appellate relief is unlikely.
- Contempt practice: distinguish civil vs. criminal contempt at the outset; if criminal attributes are present, ensure required procedural safeguards (notice, opportunity to be heard, counsel where warranted) or risk reversal.