In re Marriage of Strey, 2019 IL App (1st) 172432-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Strey, No. 1-17-2432, 2019 IL App (1st) 172432-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 15, 2019) (Rule 23 order, non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Carey Strey. Respondent-Appellant: David Strey.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in property distribution, maintenance, child support, allocation of college expenses, and imposition of attorney fees/sanctions.
- Whether the trial court improperly began trial without the appellant’s primary counsel and refused to certify a bystander’s report.
- Whether appellate review is barred by an incomplete record and procedural deficiencies in appellant’s brief.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all respects. Appellate court concluded appellant failed to provide an adequate record and forfeited review of many arguments; therefore, no reversible error shown.
- Judgment below awarded petitioner 55% of marital-proceeds (respondent 45%); guideline maintenance ($948/month); guideline child support for minor ($150.73/month); respondent to pay 60% of certain medical/extracurricular/college expenses (petitioner 40%); respondent ordered to pay attorney fees and sanctions (totaling specified amounts).

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Central grounds for affirmance: appellant did not provide the trial transcript or a certified bystander’s report—required to review trial-court conduct and credibility determinations (citing Foutch v. O’Bryant and Webster v. Hartman principles). Absent an adequate record, appellate court presumes trial-court rulings were correct.
- Appellant also violated Rule 341 briefing requirements (argumentative facts, lack of record citations, omission of standards of review) and therefore forfeited issues.
- Record showed (and trial court found) respondent’s discovery noncompliance, indirect contempt, and credibility problems; court permissibly awarded disproportionate property and fees given respondent’s greater earning capacity, conduct regarding marital funds, and failure to comply with court orders.
- Service on counsel constituted proper notice (Rule 237(b) / Rule 11 principles) — appellant’s claims about lack of notice lacked evidentiary support in the record.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve the record: secure transcripts or certify a bystander’s report if trial occurred without a court reporter; without them, appellate review of trial conduct and credibility is generally foreclosed.
- Comply strictly with Supreme Court Rules (341 briefing requirements, citing standards of review, and record cites) to avoid forfeiture.
- Courts will consider parties’ conduct, discovery noncompliance, and contempt when allocating assets, awarding maintenance, and imposing fees—document defenses and rulings contemporaneously.
- Rule 23 designation: non-precedential—useful for guidance but limited as authority.