In re Marriage of Pond
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 10/21/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case</h3>
<strong>Title:</strong> In re Marriage of Michelle R. Pond (appeal captioned Michael D. Canulli v. Michelle R. Pond)<br>
<strong>Court:</strong> Illinois Appellate Court, Third District ...
Full Case Summary
Case
Title: In re Marriage of Michelle R. Pond (appeal captioned Michael D. Canulli v. Michelle R. Pond)Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Third District — Order filed October 21, 2025 (Sup. Ct. Rule 23: non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1))
Appeal No.: 3-24-0696; Circuit No.: 03-D-2090 (Du Page County)
Summary of Facts
Background: A December 17, 2008 agreed order required Pond to pay $57,000 toward Canulli’s fees. Disputes over payments continued for years; Pond maintained she had substantially paid and received credits. Canulli (who had represented Pond in the divorce) sought enforcement by rule to show cause for indirect civil contempt.Procedural History
- Feb. 1, 2022: Canulli filed his first petition for a rule to show cause alleging $12,500 unpaid (later characterized as smaller balances after credits). - Mar. 22, 2022: Court issued a rule for $8,735.35. - Sept. 8, 2022: After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court quashed and recalled the rule, finding Pond had not willfully failed to pay and was not in indirect civil contempt. The court credited Pond’s testimony and found Canulli’s invoices and testimony inconsistent. - Dec. 8, 2022: The court denied Canulli’s motion to reconsider and declined to enter judgment for any specific unpaid sum, finding Canulli had not met his burden to prove an amount due. - Jan. 9, 2023: Canulli filed a second petition alleging a post‑Sept. 8, 2022 balance of $13,199.90 and seeking contempt or judgment. Pond moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds. - Trial court dismissed the second petition as barred by res judicata; appellate court (In re Marriage of Pond, 2024 IL App (3d) 230157‑U) reversed and remanded, holding the second petition alleged distinct post‑September 8 conduct and dismissal on res judicata was premature. The remand did not resolve merits. - On remand the trial court conducted further proceedings, held an Oct. 1, 2024 hearing, and ultimately denied Canulli’s request to issue a rule to show cause and denied reconsideration (oral motion treated as ineffective under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1203; a written postjudgment motion was later filed Oct. 29 and denied Nov. 13). Canulli appealed (notice filed Dec. 11, 2024).Legal Issues & Trial Court Reasoning
- Contempt burden: petitioner must first establish a violation; if met, burden shifts to alleged contemnor to show non‑willfulness or inability to comply. - Trial court concluded no prior judicial determination established a monetary obligation from Pond to Canulli, and Canulli failed to make a prima facie showing that Pond violated the Sept. 8, 2022 order (or that $13,199.90 was due). The December 8, 2022 record rejected Canulli’s proof of amount, and the court reiterated it had not found any sum owing. The court also treated oral posttrial reconsideration as mere argument absent a timely written motion.Appellate Ruling
Opinion by: Presiding Justice Brennan (Justices Hettel and Peterson concurred). Holding: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Canulli’s second petition for a rule to show cause and in denying reconsideration. Canulli failed to establish a prima facie case of indirect civil contempt because noncompliance and an amount owing were not established. Because the appeal was timely under Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1), the court reached the merits. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and therefore did not address Canulli’s reassignment/bias request.Disposition
Affirmed.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Pond? Ask our AI assistant below.