In re Marriage of Williams, 2022 IL App (3d) 210296-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Williams, 2022 IL App (3d) 210296-U (3d Dist. Sept. 21, 2022) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Baeta Aniela Williams. Respondent-Appellant: Paul Wesley Williams.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing Rule 137 sanctions for a pleading that contained a factual assertion (that respondent “now has a minimum of 146 overnights”) not grounded in fact.
- Whether the court’s written sanctions order complied with Rule 137’s requirement to state the factual basis for sanctions.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court concluded the record (hearing transcript and counsel admissions) was sufficient to review the sanctions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to petitioner.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The amended motion to modify child support expressly alleged respondent “now has a minimum of 146 overnights.” At hearing counsel admitted that, for 2021 (the relevant, current year), respondent had ~133 overnights and that exceeding 146 would occur only in some future (even) years. Counsel’s attempt to rely on a multi‑year average and future projected calendars did not cure the inaccuracy of the present‑tense allegation.
- Opposing counsel had made repeated, pre‑hearing requests that respondent produce a calendar or withdraw/clarify the pleading; counsel did not adequately do so. The trial court found counsel knew (or should have known) the pleading was factually inaccurate and refused to accept speculative future calendars as a substitute for a factual showing.
- Although the written order did not recite the full factual detail, the appellate court held the transcript furnished an adequate factual basis to review and uphold the sanctions, so no Rule 137 violation requiring reversal occurred. The trial court’s sanction decision was within its discretion.

5. Practice implications
- Verify and accurately plead present‑tense factual claims before filing; use qualifiers (e.g., “projected,” “averaged”) when basing relief on future or multi‑year projections and explain the basis in the pleading.
- Promptly respond to opposing counsel’s factual inquiries/meet‑and‑confer requests; withdraw or amend a claim if it is shown to be inaccurate. Failure to do so risks Rule 137 sanctions (reasonable fees/costs).
- Preserve the record: if a sanctions order’s written entry is terse, the hearing transcript can supply the necessary factual findings on appeal — but better practice is for the trial court to include clear factual findings in its written order.