In re Marriage of Stephens, 2025 IL App (1st) 242519-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Stephens, 2025 IL App (1st) 242519‑U (1st Dist. Mar. 20, 2025) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Myra Stephens. Respondent‑Appellant: Bradford Stephens. Appeal under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a circuit court may convert a temporary restraining order (TRO) into a preliminary injunction without holding an evidentiary hearing where the respondent filed a verified response denying material allegations and factual disputes exist.
- Proper scope and procedure for TROs vs. preliminary injunctions in Illinois family/dissolution proceedings (dissipation, escrow of severance/RSUs/retirement funds).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court vacated the trial court’s order converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction and remanded for an immediate evidentiary hearing. The court concluded the conversion without taking testimony or evidence was error given contested factual issues.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The opinion reiterates the well‑established distinction: a TRO is an emergency, summary device to preserve the status quo (short duration; ex parte TROs limited to 10 days) while a preliminary injunction preserves the status quo pending final disposition and normally requires an evidentiary hearing where facts are contested. (Cites Paddington Corp.; Delgado; County of Boone; Peoples Gas; Bullard.)
- Trial courts may grant a TRO on a summary showing (oral argument or affidavit), but converting to a preliminary injunction requires a hearing when the respondent files a verified answer or otherwise raises factual disputes about dissipation, valuation of assets (here RSUs), or uses of funds (withdrawals, loans, severance). (Cites Buzz Barton re elements of injunctive relief.)
- Because respondent denied the material allegations and raised defenses (valuation and transferability of RSUs, purpose of withdrawals/loans), the summary proceeding without sworn testimony or exhibits was insufficient to satisfy due process and the standards for preliminary injunctive relief.

5) Practice implications (practical points for counsel)
- If seeking conversion of a TRO to a preliminary injunction, be prepared to present admissible evidence at the hearing (witness testimony, affidavits subject to cross‑examination, account statements, RSU plan documents, expert valuation if needed).
- If opposing a TRO, file a verified response and demand an evidentiary hearing; preserve cross‑examination and request findings on irreparable harm, inadequate remedy at law, and likelihood of success.
- Remember procedural limits on ex parte TROs (10 days) and use interlocutory appeal (Rule 307) to promptly challenge improper conversions.
- In dissolution cases involving RSUs, severance, or transfers, move promptly to escrow disputed funds and obtain narrow, evidence‑based injunctive relief rather than broad indefinite prohibitions.