In re Marriage of Schinsky, 2024 IL App (3d) 240164-U

1. Case citation and parties

In re Marriage of Schinsky, 2024 IL App (3d) 240164-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Mar. 15, 2024).
Petitioner‑Appellee: Mark Sharp Schinsky. Respondent‑Appellant: Lydia Sharp Schinsky.

2. Key legal issues

- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying emergency injunctive relief (temporary restraining order) to halt a Nevada in rem trust action pending resolution of Lydia’s Illinois declaratory‑judgment claim that the trust assets are marital property.
- Whether the appellate court had interlocutory jurisdiction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1) from what the trial court characterized as a denial of the emergency nature of the motion.

3. Holding / outcome

The Third District affirmed. It held it had jurisdiction under Rule 307 because the trial court effectively denied TRO relief and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying emergency relief for failure to show irreparable harm. A dissent would have held the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

4. Significant legal reasoning

- TROs are emergency remedies intended to preserve the status quo until a full hearing on a preliminary injunction; issuance requires a showing, inter alia, of imminent and irreparable harm. Standard of review: abuse of discretion.
- The trial court found Lydia’s emergency motion failed to identify the requisite irreparable harm from allowing a Nevada court to adjudicate the trust (it was “not at all clear” what harm would result from a coequal sovereign deciding a matter under its own law). The trial court presumed Nevada courts would apply law and due process.
- The Third District concluded the trial court’s denial of emergency relief (and scheduling for normal response time) was functionally a TRO denial, making the order appealable under Rule 307. Given Lydia’s failure to show specific irreparable harm, denying TRO was not an abuse of discretion. Justice McDade dissented, arguing the ruling only addressed local emergency‑hearing prerequisites and thus did not amount to a denial of TRO for Rule 307 purposes.

5. Practice implications

- When seeking emergency injunctive relief to enjoin foreign proceedings, expressly plead and evidentiary‑support imminent, concrete irreparable injury (asset dissipation, enforcement risk, race to judgment, or forum‑shopping consequences). Broad assertions about “prejudice” are insufficient.
- Preserve a record on exigency: affidavits, detailed facts showing why immediate relief is necessary, proposed protective orders (asset freezes, restraints on transfers), and expedited discovery.
- Anticipate jurisdictional pushback under Rule 307—if the trial court characterizes relief as non‑emergency but leaves merits pending, appellate jurisdiction can be contested; preserve arguments both for emergency relief and for expedited merits briefing.
- Coordinate cross‑jurisdiction strategy (consider committal to Nevada court, comity analysis, or seeking a stay in the foreign forum) rather than relying solely on TRO relief in Illinois.