In re Marriage of Soman, 2021 IL App (1st) 200513-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Soman, 2021 IL App (1st) 200513‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Feb. 18, 2021) (Rule 23 order; not precedent).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Pamela Soman. Respondent-Appellant: Andrew Cwik.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether an Illinois circuit court properly dismissed pro se respondent’s repeated petitions to enroll a foreign (Ohio) dissolution and to modify child support/parenting time where Ohio had continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- Whether the circuit court properly awarded petitioner attorney fees and costs (Rule 137 and 750 ILCS 5/508(b)) and enjoined further filings as vexatious litigation.
- Appellate procedural issue: adequacy of the record for review (failure to supply transcripts/report of proceedings).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of respondent’s petitions and the award of attorney fees/costs and injunction against further filings. The court relied principally on the insufficiency of the record on appeal, applying the presumption that the trial court’s orders were correct.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Appellant failed to provide an adequate record (no report of proceedings for the hearings at which the petitions were denied). Under Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389 (1984), that failure mandates presuming the trial court’s ruling conformed to law and had factual basis; appellate review is curtailed.
- The opinion recounts a long Ohio docket: divorce (2009), orders granting relocation to Illinois, an Ohio injunction against further filings by respondent, an Ohio order (July 2011) asserting exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, and prior Illinois dismissals (including a prior appeal, Cwik v. Cwik, 2013 IL App (1st) 121123‑U).
- On fees, the circuit court found respondent’s repeated, unchanged petitions and inaccurate recitations of the Ohio record were harassing and increased litigation costs; sanctions under Rule 137 and section 508(b) were appropriate. The appellate court did not disturb that factual finding given the inadequate record.

5. Practice implications
- Preservation: appellants (including pro se litigants) must provide a complete record (reports of proceedings/transcripts) to obtain appellate review; failure is fatal to appellate claims.
- Forum‑shopping risk: repeatedly filing identical petitions to enroll foreign decrees after prior dismissals and an adverse history can support sanctions and injunctive relief (vexatious‑litigant treatment).
- Pleading/enforcement of foreign orders: include the full foreign judgment and post‑decree orders as required (statutory provisions cited in the litigation, e.g., 750 ILCS 5/511(c); follow UCCJEA/Uniform Interstate Family Support Act procedures).
- Use of sanctions: attorneys should consider Rule 137, 750 ILCS 5/508(b), and motions to declare a party vexatious where filings are duplicative or objectively unreasonable.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 / non‑precedential order; persuasive but limited precedential value.