In re Parentage of C.P., 2019 IL App (2d) 180585-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Parentage of C.P., 2019 IL App (2d) 180585‑U (Order filed May 21, 2019) (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist.) — Rule 23 nonprecedential.
- Petitioner: Kirsten Book; Respondent‑Appellee: James Eric Pittman; Appellant: Law Office of Anthony Abear, P.C. (attorney seeking contribution).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether, after the client’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge of her obligation to counsel, the other parent can be required to contribute to those attorney fees.
- Appellate procedural issue: whether the appellant complied with Illinois Supreme Court Rules governing the record and appellate briefs (Rules 321, 323, 341, 342, 324).

3. Holding/outcome
- Trial court: dismissed the petition for contribution, concluding the discharged debt extinguished any contribution obligation because the attorney’s fees were contractual between counsel and the client and the other parent had no contractual or guarantee obligation. The court also construed §508(a) of the IMDMA as permitting fee shifting only where a debt exists, not creating co‑debtor status.
- Appellate court: struck appellant’s brief and dismissed the appeal for procedural noncompliance with Supreme Court Rules (incomplete record, failure to include the Rule 304(a) finding, no transcript or substitute, improper appendix citations). Because dismissal was on procedural grounds, the court’s order is nonprecedential under Rule 23.

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- On the merits (as recited by the trial court): client’s Chapter 7 discharge eliminated the debt she owed counsel; absent a contract, guarantee, or statutory mechanism converting the obligation into a joint‑and‑several duty, the other parent cannot be compelled to contribute. The IMDMA fee‑shifting provision allows assignment of fees as part of judgment but does not itself create contractual obligations to counsel by third parties.
- Procedurally: appellant failed to provide essential parts of the common‑law record (petition, response, motion to dismiss, hearing transcript or Rule 323 substitute, Rule 304(a) finding) and violated Rules 341/342 by not citing record pages and relying on an appendix not in the record—grounds sufficient to dismiss.

5. Practice implications
- Substantive: if a client’s obligation to counsel is discharged in bankruptcy, pursuing contribution from a third party requires an independent contractual or statutory basis (e.g., express guarantee or other enforceable obligation); fee‑shifting statutes do not automatically make third parties co‑debtors.
- Appellate practice: strict compliance with Rules 321/323/324/341/342 is essential — include the full appealed order, Rule 304(a) entry if applicable, a transcript or acceptable substitute, and cite record page numbers. Do not rely on prior appeals’ records or appendices that are not made part of the current record. Noncompliance can result in striking briefs and dismissal regardless of perceived merits.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order and not binding precedent.