In re Marriage of Sinha, 2019 IL App (2d) 180309-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Sinha, 2019 IL App (2d) 180309‑U (2d Dist. Aug. 20, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Jyoti Sinha. Respondent‑Appellant: Mukesh K. Sinha.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a dissolution judgment that did not dispose of all pending claims.
- Whether the trial court’s written finding under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) was sufficient to make the partial judgment immediately appealable.
- Whether an order finding a party in indirect civil contempt is immediately appealable where no sanction was imposed.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dissolution order was not final and appealable: the trial court’s Rule 304(a) language referred only to “enforcement” (not “appeal”), there was no clear invocation of Rule 304(a) in the record, and contempt findings without an imposed penalty are not immediately appealable.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Finality principle: appellate jurisdiction requires either a final judgment disposing of all claims (Ill. S. Ct. R. 301) or a proper Rule 304(a) finding when fewer than all claims are resolved.
- Rule 304(a) analysis: the court relied on In re Du Page County Collector (152 Ill.2d 545) which permits a finding that refers to enforceability alone only if the record shows an intent to invoke Rule 304(a). Here the trial court’s order said only “no just reason for delaying enforcement of this judgment,” with no reference to appeal or Rule 304(a) and nothing in the record showing intent to make the order immediately appealable.
- Contempt rule: following In re Marriage of Gutman and Rule 304(b)(5), contempt orders are appealable only when they impose a penalty; the trial court’s contempt findings imposed no sanction, so they were not immediately appealable.
- Premature notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction. The court dismissed but noted that Rule 303(a)(2) provides a mechanism to treat a premature notice as effective once the remaining claims are resolved or by motion to supplement the record.

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- If entering an appealable partial judgment, include explicit Rule 304(a) language: “no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal or both” or expressly cite Rule 304(a), and ensure the record shows intent to invoke the rule.
- For contempt appeals, recognize that a contempt finding without sanctions is not immediately appealable; impose a sanction or obtain a separate final adjudication to preserve appellate rights.
- Advise clients not to file premature appeals; if a premature notice is filed, use Rule 303(a)(2) or move to supplement the record/reconsideration after remaining matters conclude.
- Remember Rule 23 status: this decision is non‑precedential but useful for procedural caution.