In re Marriage of Yazeji, 2021 IL App (3d) 190430-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Yazeji, 2021 IL App (3d) 190430‑U (3d Dist. June 23, 2021) (Rule 23 order; not precedent).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: May S. Yazeji. Respondent‑Appellant: Bassam A. Assaf.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred by imposing Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 sanctions on former husband for filing a Rule 305(b) motion to stay enforcement of a parenting plan after having filed a notice of appeal.
- Whether a post‑appeal stay motion is a “collateral” matter that the trial court may decide despite an appeal having been docketed.

3. Holding/outcome
- Reversed the trial court’s Rule 137 sanction order and remanded with directions to refund any sanctions paid. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions because it incorrectly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to decide the stay motion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdictional framework: A timely notice of appeal vests appellate jurisdiction, but trial courts retain jurisdiction over matters collateral or incidental to the judgment (citing General Motors Corp. v. Pappas and Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher).
- The court concluded a Rule 305(b) stay request seeking to suspend enforcement of a parenting plan is collateral to the dissolution judgment; therefore the trial court retained authority to rule on the stay after an appeal was filed.
- Rule 137 permits sanctions for pleadings/motions lacking any reasonable basis in fact or law (objective standard), but it is penal and must be strictly construed. Because the stay motion was not legally frivolous (trial court had jurisdiction to consider it), sanctions were improper.
- Standard of review: sanctions decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but here the trial court’s jurisdictional error rendered the sanction ruling unreasonable.

5. Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Do not assume that filing a notice of appeal automatically strips the trial court of jurisdiction over all post‑judgment motions; stays under Rule 305(b) can be treated as collateral and litigated in the trial court.
- Be cautious in seeking Rule 137 sanctions based solely on an argument that the trial court lacks jurisdiction because an appeal is pending—courts will closely examine whether the motion was objectively frivolous.
- Document jurisdictional and collateral‑issue arguments when filing or defending post‑judgment stay motions; sanctions exposure is possible but the bar for Rule 137 remains high.
- If sanctions are imposed, preserve appellate review on both the propriety of sanctions and the underlying jurisdictional question.