In re Marriage of Zhang, 2021 IL App (2d) 190163-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Zhang, 2021 IL App (2d) 190163‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Aug. 25, 2021) (Rule 23(b) order — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Hong “Holly” Zhang. Respondent‑Appellee: Yingjun “Alan” Tang. Post‑dissolution dispute over child support and college expense allocation; Holly’s § 2‑1401 petition to vacate the trial court’s modification order.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether Holly’s § 2‑1401 petition alleged facts sufficient to show (a) due diligence in discovering and presenting new facts and (b) a meritorious claim or defense relevant to vacating the February 27, 2018 modification order (735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 (West 2016)).
- Whether a § 2‑1401 petition may be used as a substitute for an appeal or to relitigate matters known at the time of the original proceeding.

3. Holding / outcome
- Appellate court affirmed dismissal (with prejudice) of Holly’s amended § 2‑1401 petition. The petition failed to allege new facts not known or discoverable at the original hearing or to show due diligence and a meritorious defense. Relief under § 2‑1401 denied.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The underlying dissolution MSA had extended child support/college obligations; Alan filed to modify in 2016. The trial court (relying on In re Marriage of Pratt) terminated support for the older child and reallocated college costs after finding a substantial change in circumstances.
- Holly initially appealed, later dismissed that appeal and filed a § 2‑1401 petition asserting “facts not in the record” (withdrawals from accounts, mis‑stipulation on college contributions, prior tuition payments, underpayment). The trial court dismissed for failure to plead diligence/meritorious defense; Holly amended but still alleged facts that existed before or during the modification hearing and did not show why they were not discoverable or presented earlier.
- The appellate court stressed that § 2‑1401 relief requires more than displeasure with outcomes or counsel’s performance; petition cannot substitute for an appeal or re‑litigate points that could have been raised at the modification hearing.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- § 2‑1401 is not a backdoor appeal: plead and prove due diligence, newly discovered facts (not merely different theories about existing record evidence), and a meritorious defense. Allegations must explain why facts were not discoverable earlier and include supporting affidavits/documents.
- If you intend to preserve appellate review, pursue and maintain the appeal rather than using § 2‑1401 as a parallel/substitute remedy. Consider motion to reconsider and timely appeal; if invoking § 2‑1401, craft detailed, fact‑specific allegations showing when/how evidence was discovered and why prior counsel could not have raised it.
- Note the opinion’s Rule 23(b) status — persuasive for practice but not controlling precedent.