In re Marriage of Umrani, 2019 IL App (1st) 182193-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Umrani, No. 1-18-2193, 2019 IL App (1st) 182193-U (Dec. 23, 2019) (Rule 23 order; may not be cited as precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)). Petitioner-Appellant: Mohsin J. Umrani. Respondent-Appellee: Fakiha Siddiqui.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a timely motion to vacate a default judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1301(e).
- Whether a defendant in default may be precluded from objecting to a plaintiff’s prove‑up evidence or from testifying regarding unliquidated damages at a prove‑up hearing.
- Whether substantial justice requires vacatur where the defaulted defendant alleges meritorious defenses and severe financial prejudice.

3) Holding / outcome
- Reversed and remanded. Appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by (a) barring Umrani from objecting or testifying at the prove‑up and (b) denying his motion to vacate the default judgment. The cause is remanded for opportunity to file responsive pleadings, conduct reasonable discovery, and proceed on the merits.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Section 2‑1301(e) standard: A motion to vacate filed within 30 days of judgment is evaluated with an eye toward whether “substantial justice” is being done; the movant need not always prove a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse. (735 ILCS 5/2‑1301(e); In re Haley D. cited.)
- Even a defaulted defendant retains the right to be heard on unliquidated damages at a prove‑up (citing Molden v. Reid and City of Joliet precedent): fundamental fairness requires plaintiff prove damages and permits defendant opportunity to contest.
- The record showed Siddiqui obtained a $22,058.54 award (including $6,000 cash) though Umrani’s 2017 income was $10,800 and he alleged he made under $1,000/month and was a full‑time student. The award imposed a severe penalty; vacatur was appropriate where defendant alleged denial of opportunity to present evidence and where plaintiff showed no undue prejudice from re‑litigation.

5) Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Do not treat a default as an absolute bar to contesting unliquidated damages at prove‑up; courts must allow the defaulted party opportunity to be heard on damages.
- If judgment entered, file a 2‑1301(e) motion within 30 days; attach documentary support (tax returns, W‑2s) to show hardship/meritorious defense and to press the “substantial justice” argument.
- At prove‑ups, demand strict proof of monetary claims and object to exclusion of defendant testimony; preserve the record for appeal if court prevents defense.
- Be cautious when advising pro se litigants: misadvice about not filing an answer can support vacatur motions.
- Because this is a Rule 23 (unpublished) order, treat it as persuasive authority only in limited circumstances.