In re Marriage of Rednour, 2024 IL App (5th) 230349-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Rednour, 2024 IL App (5th) 230349-U — Petitioner-Appellant: Thomas Rednour; Respondent-Appellee: Tammy Rednour.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a dissolution judgment that expressly reserved disposition of several marital assets (Thomas’s pension; Tammy’s workers’ compensation and Social Security disability benefits).
2. Whether a trial-court motion to apportion a lump-sum Social Security disability award qualified as a postjudgment motion under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 303(a) and/or otherwise affected appeal timing (i.e., whether a prematurely filed notice of appeal became effective upon disposition).

- Holding/outcome
The Fifth District dismissed Thomas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded the dissolution judgment was not final because the trial court had reserved distribution of several assets, leaving those claims unresolved at the time of the notice of appeal.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Finality and reserved claims: The trial court’s memorandum and judgment expressly reserved distribution of speculative assets (pension, workers’ compensation permanency, SSD/benefit proceeds), directing the recipient to give notice and permitting either party to file a later petition to distribute proceeds. Because those separate claims remained pending and dispositive relief as to them was reserved, the judgment was not final for appellate purposes. No Rule 304(a) certification was entered to make the order immediately appealable.
- Rule 303 timing analysis: The court reviewed Supreme Court Rule 303(a) (notice of appeal timing). It rejected the respondent’s contention that the movant’s postjudgment apportionment motion (re: the lump-sum SSD award) altered jurisdiction here — the opinion first observed that the apportionment motion did not request statutorily authorized relief directed against the judgment (and thus was not a Rule 303(a)(2) postjudgment motion), so it did not toll the appeal period. The court further noted that even if that motion had been a postjudgment motion, Rule 303(a)(2) would have rendered Thomas’s premature notice effective upon the trial court’s later entry of the apportionment order, so no second notice would have been required. Nonetheless, that procedural point did not salvage the appeal because unresolved reserved assets rendered the overall judgment nonfinal.

- Practice implications (concise)
- To secure immediate appellate jurisdiction in a dissolution, either resolve/distribute all marital assets or obtain a Rule 304(a) certification that there is no just reason to delay enforcement/appeal.
- Avoid open-ended reservations of claims (pension, workers’ comp, SSD) if you intend to appeal; if reservation is necessary, expect final-judgment challenges.
- Premature notices of appeal generally become effective under Rule 303(a)(2) when the last postjudgment motion or separate claim is disposed of — but that doctrine does not cure a lack of finality caused by unresolved reserved assets.