In re Marriage of Roman-Kroczek, 2021 IL App (1st) 210613

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Roman‑Kroczek, 2021 IL App (1st) 210613. Petitioner‑Appellee: Krystyna S. Roman‑Kroczek; Respondent‑Appellee: Bohdan J. Kroczek; Intervenor/Appellant: Izabela Roman.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s April 27, 2021 order compelling Izabela (a non‑party/intervenor) to list and sell a Florida residence amounted to an injunction appealable under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing that injunction (ordering sale of property to generate funds to pay parties’ attorneys) without adequate notice, findings, or application of less intrusive remedies.

3. Holding/outcome
The appellate court held the order was injunctive and therefore appealable under Rule 307. It concluded the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction and reversed the trial court’s order compelling Izabela to sell the Florida property.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Characterization as injunction: The court explained an injunction is a mandatory in personam order requiring a person to do a particular act; ordering Izabela to list and sell the property (alienation of a unique asset) fit that definition and was not a mere temporary escrow or interim fee mechanism (distinguishing In re Marriage of Tetzlaff). Thus interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under Rule 307 attached.
- Abuse of discretion: The court emphasized procedural and substantive flaws underlying the sale order — the Florida sale was not on the hearing agenda, Izabela lacked notice that her property would be ordered sold, and the court imposed a coercive remedy requiring specific performance/alienation of property without first applying less severe measures or making necessary equitable findings. The court also noted the irreversible nature of ordering sale of unique realty and the need for proper process and justification before compelling such alienation.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Interlocutory injunctions: Orders compelling sale/alienation of property are injunctive and immediately appealable under Rule 307 — consider prompt interlocutory review.
- Due process & notice: Courts should not be allowed to order sale of unique assets sua sponte or without placing the issue on the motion calendar and giving targeted notice; object early to lack of notice.
- Remedy sequencing: Trial courts must consider and articulate less intrusive alternatives (lines of credit, escrow, enforcement of judgments) before ordering sale of property; preserve objections and demand specific findings.
- Third‑party/intervenor protections: When third parties have financial interests (liens, mortgage payoff, reliance on prior orders), press issues of reliance, equitable ownership, and creditor status before the court orders alienation.