In re Marriage of Tener, 2024 IL App (1st) 220890

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Tener, 2024 IL App (1st) 220890 (Apr. 5, 2024).
- Petitioner: Joseph Tener. Respondent-Appellant: Veronica Walter. Guardian ad litem-Appellee: Beth McCormack.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the dissolution court’s appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) for an adult party was a void order for lack of statutory authority.
- Whether orders awarding GAL and counsel fees/costs were final and appealable under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a).
- Related due-process argument: whether Walter was effectively denied access to counsel (procedural/substantive due process).

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
- The court held the GAL appointment was not a void order (at most voidable) because the circuit court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
- The fee awards were not reviewable pre‑final judgment under Rule 304(a) despite the trial court’s “no just reason” language.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Void vs. voidable: The opinion follows Illinois precedent that civil judgments are void only where there is a “total want of jurisdiction” (subject-matter or personal). A claimed lack of statutory authority to appoint a GAL does not eliminate the circuit court’s constitutional jurisdiction; failure to follow statutory procedures renders an order at most voidable and reviewable only by timely appeal. (citing LVNV Funding v. Trice; Mitchell; Steinbrecher.)
- Finality/Rule 304(a): Dissolution actions constitute a single claim (the request to dissolve the marriage); ancillary issues (custody, fees, appointment of GAL) are not separate claims for purposes of Rule 304(a). The rule’s certification cannot convert interlocutory, ancillary rulings in a dissolution into independently appealable final judgments. (citing Leopando and related Supreme Court authority.)
- Due-process claim: Because the orders were not final/appealable, the appellate court did not reach a merits determination that Walter’s access-to-counsel/due-process rights were violated.

5. Practice implications
- Challenges to a GAL appointment in a dissolution case should be raised by timely appeal from the final divorce judgment (or by immediate attack only where there is a true lack of jurisdiction), not simply by collateral attack asserting statutory noncompliance.
- Be cautious relying on a trial court’s Rule 304(a) “no just reason” language to create an immediate appeal in divorce proceedings; appellate courts will examine whether the ruling resolves a separate, final claim or is an ancillary/interlocutory matter.
- If immediate review of fees or GAL-related rulings is desired, consider seeking (a) explicit severance of an independent claim where appropriate, or (b) interlocutory relief by other available means; otherwise preserve objections for final-judgment review.
- Due-process/access-to-counsel claims tied to interlocutory orders may be forfeited unless the issue can be shown to render a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction.