In re Marriage of Sughayar, 2025 IL App (3d) 230712-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Sughayar, 2025 IL App (3d) 230712-U. Petitioner: Emad H. Sughayar; Respondent‑Appellant: Walaa A. Sughayar; Third‑party Respondent‑Appellee: Issak Sughayar.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the appellate court could review the circuit court’s dismissal of Walaa’s third‑party complaint with prejudice.
2) Whether the circuit court properly imposed Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 sanctions against Walaa for filing her third‑party complaints.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to review whether dismissal should have been without prejudice. It reversed the trial court’s imposition of Rule 137 sanctions against Walaa, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction: The court declined to reach the merits of Walaa’s claim that dismissal should have been without prejudice because the order being challenged was not an appealable final order (the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to decide that issue).
- Rule 137 analysis: Rule 137 sanctions require a showing that a pleading was frivolous (no reasonable factual or legal basis) or was filed for an improper purpose, after reasonable inquiry. The appellate court found the record did not support the trial court’s conclusion that Walaa’s third‑party complaints were frivolous or made for an improper purpose. Important points supporting Walaa included: the trial court had previously exercised its equitable power and allowed Issak to be joined so that a complete accounting could be made; many allegations in the complaints tracked facts already in the record (depositions and prior orders); several allegations were pled “on information and belief,” which can be permissible where the facts are peculiarly within the opposing party’s knowledge; and factual disputes (land trust vs. joint tenancy, whether Issak’s business still operated on the property) meant dismissal and sanctions were premature. Because reasonable inquiry and a factual basis existed for the filings, sanctions were improper and an abuse of discretion.

- Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Do not assume information‑and‑belief allegations will automatically justify sanctions when facts are largely within another party’s control; document the factual basis and discovery that supports such pleadings.
- Before seeking Rule 137 sanctions, ensure the challenged pleading truly lacks any reasonable factual or legal basis and is not merely premised on contested facts.
- Be mindful of appealability: interlocutory or ancillary orders (e.g., certain third‑party dismissal rulings) may not be immediately appealable—consider preserving issues for final judgment or seeking leave where appropriate.
- When attempting to join third parties in dissolution matters, tie pleadings clearly to statutory or equitable authority and plead causes of action with specificity where the law requires it (e.g., accounting elements) to avoid dismissal on pleading‑defect grounds.