In re Marriage of Pittman, 2021 IL App (1st) 173174-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Pittman, No. 1-17-3174, 2021 IL App (1st) 173174-U (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2021) (Rule 23 order — not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)). Petitioner-Appellant: Debbie Pittman (pro se on appeal). Respondent-Appellee: Ronnie Pittman.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed (and to enter a second finding of indirect civil contempt) after petitioner’s interlocutory notice of appeal and after a purported “strike from the call” entry triggered by petitioner’s motion to vacate.
- Whether orders entered while an interlocutory appeal is pending are void or subject to review where the trial court continued to adjudicate post-appeal matters (contempt, rent judgement, eviction, purge amount).

3) Holding / Outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s adjudication of indirect civil contempt. It held the trial court retained jurisdiction notwithstanding petitioner’s interlocutory appeal and the “strike from the call” docket notation; petitioner’s challenges to the trial court’s jurisdiction fail. Other claims were previously dismissed for lack of finality in an earlier appeal.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Subject matter jurisdiction: the circuit court plainly had jurisdiction over the domestic-relations dispute (a justiciable matter within circuit-court constitutional grant).
- Interlocutory appeal effect: filing a notice of appeal of an interlocutory order does not divest the trial court of all jurisdiction; it only restrains the trial court from entering orders that would change or modify the order on appeal or interfere with its review. Orders entered post-notice remain valid provided they do not alter the substantive issues under review.
- Appellate record rules: petitioner, appearing pro se, failed to supply a complete report of proceedings. Under Foutch, where the record is incomplete, the reviewing court presumes trial-court orders are correct and resolves doubts against the appellant.
- Procedural posture: the court reviewed the docket, the motion practice, and concluded the trial court properly managed post-appeal proceedings (including striking a deficient motion and proceeding with contempt and purge orders).

5) Practice implications
- Don’t assume an informal docket entry or a motion to “vacate” or “strike from the call” divests the trial court of jurisdiction; secure an appellate stay if you want to freeze enforcement.
- When appealing interlocutory orders, be precise about what relief you seek and recognize the trial court can continue to adjudicate collateral and enforcement matters so long as those actions do not alter the appealed order.
- Preserve the record: pro se or retained counsel must ensure reports of proceedings and docket entries are in the record; absent a full record, appellate courts will presume regularity.
- Failure to appear at hearing dates risks additional adverse orders (strike motions, bench rulings, contempt) and may complicate appellate relief.