In re Marriage of Salvetiu, 2023 IL App (1st) 211162-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Salvetiu, 2023 IL App (1st) 211162-U (1st Dist. Mar. 14, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Gelu Salvetiu. Respondent‑Appellee: Simona Salvetiu.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court’s award of spousal maintenance in the dissolution judgment was void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because no separate pleading expressly requested maintenance.
2. Alternatively, whether the maintenance award was an abuse of discretion.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The maintenance award (164 months at $890/mo) was not void for lack of jurisdiction and was presumed proper where appellant failed to provide a complete record. Appellant’s alternate argument that the award was an abuse of discretion was not sustained on the record presented.

- Significant legal reasoning (short form)
- Statutory basis: The court emphasized that a circuit court’s authority in dissolution cases is statutory. Sections 401(b) and 504(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/401(b), 5/504(a)) authorize courts, when dissolving a marriage, to consider and award maintenance as part of the dissolution judgment.
- Pleading requirements: Illinois law does not require a separate, standalone pleading requesting maintenance where the dissolution petition (and answer) and the statutory framework put the parties on notice. A general prayer for “such other relief as the court deems just” plus presentation of evidence on financial circumstances can support a maintenance award (citing In re Marriage of Hochleutner).
- Distinguishing precedent: The court distinguished Fox (custody ordered in contempt proceedings lacking notice) and Suriano because those involved distinct proceedings where notice was lacking; here a dissolution petition inherently raised maintenance as an issue.
- Record deficiencies: No report of proceedings or acceptable substitute was filed. Under Foutch, doubts from an incomplete record are resolved against the appellant, and the appellate court presumes the trial court acted properly. The appellee did not file a brief; the appeal proceeded on appellant’s brief alone.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Always preserve the record: obtain and file complete transcripts or acceptable Rule 323 substitutes; failure to do so severely limits appellate review.
- Plead clearly: expressly plead for maintenance if it is a contested issue; though a general prayer and evidence may suffice, explicit pleadings reduce jurisdiction/notice disputes.
- Develop the record on statutory factors: present clear evidentiary findings tied to 750 ILCS 5/504(a) factors and request written findings under §401(b) to support an award on appeal.
- When addressing cross‑proceedings (e.g., contempt or foreign actions), clarify scope and notice to avoid Fox‑type problems.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order and not precedent except in limited circumstances.