In re Marriage of Rexroat, 2022 IL App (3d) 210318-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Rexroat, 2022 IL App (3d) 210318-U. Petitioner-Appellee: Virginia Nell Rexroat. Respondent-Appellant: William John Rexroat.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by cutting off discovery before the final dissolution hearing.
2) Whether the court’s and petitioner’s counsel’s mistaken belief that counsel had requested the discovery cutoff constituted fraud on the court.
3) Related procedural rulings (denial of last‑minute continuance; treatment of pro se, voluminous late filings).

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in closing discovery, and the mistaken belief that discovery had been requested did not amount to fraud on the court. The dissolution judgment (including maintenance award) was affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: closure of discovery and docket management are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Trial management: the court explained it closed discovery to permit a final trial after protracted, repeated filings and subpoenas by respondent — a legitimate docket‑management purpose. The court also clarified that closing discovery is not the same as excluding evidence at trial; it restricts additional formal discovery tools (interrogatories, subpoenas) but does not prevent a party from presenting evidence within evidentiary rules.
- Record support: transcripts showed petitioner’s counsel asked about cutting off discovery; the court relied on that representation in February and at subsequent hearings. The appellant’s assertion that no request had been made was not supported by the record.
- Fraud on the court: a mistaken belief or misstatement that a request was made, without evidence of intent to deceive or other egregious conduct, did not meet the high threshold for fraud on the court.
- Timeliness: respondent’s last‑minute continuance request and failure to appear were untimely; the trial court permissibly denied continuance given the circumstances.

- Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Preserve the record: explicitly state discovery‑cutoff requests on the record and get clear rulings to avoid later disputes.
- Timeliness: file and notice continuance/recusal/discovery motions promptly; late, voluminous filings and pro se tactics undermine relief.
- Distinguish discovery from admissibility: courts can close discovery to move to trial but still admit evidence subject to rules; counsel should seek targeted relief (reopen discovery or admit specific evidence) and show prejudice.
- Allegations of fraud on the court require clear, intentional misconduct — ordinary mistakes or miscommunications will not suffice.