In re Marriage of Gutman

• Citation: 232 Ill.2d 145,902 N.E.2d 631
• Decision Date: 20 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. 105648.,105648.
• Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF Daniel GUTMAN, Appellee, and Mary Gutman, Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

902 N.E.2d 631

232 Ill.2d 145

In re MARRIAGE OF Daniel GUTMAN, Appellee, and Mary Gutman, Appellant.

No. 105648.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

November 20, 2008.

Rehearing Denied January 26, 2009.

Brian J. Hurst, Olga A. Wrobel, Chicago, for appellant.

Timothy J. Storm, Wauconda, for appellee.

OPINION

Justice BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

This case concerns whether the trial court's order terminating maintenance to Mary Gutman was final and appealable without a finding under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 Ill.2d R. 304(a)) when Mary's civil contempt petition against Daniel Gutman was still pending.

The appellate court held that, although a civil contempt petition is part of the underlying action, it does not, for purposes of Rule 304(a), raise a "claim for relief" in that action. Thus, according to the appellate court, the circuit court of Lake County's order terminating maintenance was final and appealable without a Rule 304(a) finding. The appellate court dismissed Mary's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding it untimely since it was filed more than 30 days after the final order determining maintenance. 376 Ill.App.3d 758, 315 Ill. Dec. 806, 877 N.E.2d 1135.

BACKGROUND

The parties' marriage was dissolved on September 12, 1996. At the time of dissolution, the trial court reserved the issue of maintenance. In July 1999, the court entered an order requiring Daniel to pay maintenance in the amount of $2,900 per month for a period of three years.

On June 21, 2002, Mary filed a motion seeking to continue and modify the maintenance award. On July 3, 2002, the trial court entered an agreed order granting Daniel until August 7, 2002, to file a response to Mary's petition, and ordered Daniel to continue making maintenance payments until further order of the court. On August 20, 2003, Daniel filed a motion seeking to modify the judgment for dissolution and to terminate maintenance.

On September 18, 2003, Mary filed a petition for indirect civil contempt, alleging that Daniel had stopped making maintenance payments as of September 1, 2003, in violation of the July 3, 2002, order. On September 25, 2003, the court entered a rule to show cause against Daniel. The court set a date for hearing on the rule, together with the parties' pending maintenance petitions.

Mary did not appear at the scheduled hearing. The court granted Daniel's petition to terminate maintenance and dismissed Mary's contempt petition. Mary successfully moved to vacate both judgments, but on the next hearing date, Mary again failed to appear. The court once again granted Daniel's motion to terminate maintenance and dismissed with prejudice Mary's motion to continue and modify maintenance. The court's written order, entered on June 23, 2005, did not address the contempt petition, nor did it contain a finding pursuant to Rule 304(a).

On July 22, 2005, Mary brought a motion to vacate the June 23, 2005, order, which the trial court denied. Thirty-five days later, Mary filed a motion to reconsider. The court denied the motion and Mary appealed.

The appellate court dismissed Mary's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 376 Ill. App.3d 758, 315 Ill.Dec. 806, 877 N.E.2d 1135. The court held that, despite the pendency of the contempt petition, the trial court's judgment granting Daniel's petition to terminate maintenance was a final judgment as to all "claims for relief" in the dissolution action, subject to Rule 303(a). The court held that the contempt petition did not raise a "claim for relief" in the dissolution action, which would have required a Rule 304(a) finding, but that it was an original special proceeding independent of the underlying case. 376 Ill. App.3d at 764, 315 Ill.Dec. 806, 877 N.E.2d 1135. Because Mary failed to file her appeal within 30 days of the order granting Daniel's petition or within 30 days of the denial of her motion to vacate, her appeal was untimely. 376 Ill.App.3d at 759, 315 Ill.Dec. 806, 877 N.E.2d 1135.

We allowed Mary's petition for leave to appeal (210 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).

ANALYSIS

At the outset, we consider a threshold issue—whether this appeal should be dismissed because the appellate court judgment before us is no longer legally in effect. Nine weeks after one panel of the Appellate Court, Second District, filed its opinion in the case now before us, a separate panel of the court expressly "overruled" that decision in In re Marriage of Knoerr, 377 Ill.App.3d 1042, 316 Ill.Dec. 665, 879 N.E.2d 1053 (2007). Approximately one month later, a third panel of the Appellate Court, Second District, entered a ruling consistent with its holding in Knoerr. See In re Marriage of Schwieger, 379 Ill.App.3d 687, 318 Ill.Dec. 325, 883 N.E.2d 556 (2008). In Schwieger, the author of the decision before us, Justice Grometer, specially concurred, stating that he still believed the judgment was correct, but that he would abide by the Knoerr decision "in the interest of providing clear guidance for our constituents." Schwieger, 379 Ill.App.3d at 690, 318 Ill.Dec. 325, 883 N.E.2d 556 (Grometer, J., specially concurring).

Knoerr was decided on December 21, 2007. The petition for leave to appeal in this case was granted on January 30, 2008. If, in fact, Knoerr overruled the decision before us, then we would have granted leave to appeal in a case that is no longer legally in effect and dismissal would be warranted.

We find, however, that the decision before us has not been overruled. A panel, division, or district of the appellate court has no authority to overrule another panel, division, or district. See Gillen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 215 Ill.2d 381, 392 n. 2, 294 Ill.Dec. 163, 830 N.E.2d 575 (2005) ("A decision of our appellate court may only be reversed or overruled by this court"). Thus, despite its statement to the contrary, Knoerr did not overrule this case. The Knoerr panel created a conflict of authority by disagreeing with a decision from another panel of a court of equal stature. We conclude, therefore, that the appellate court decision we are reviewing remains in effect.

Turning to the substance of this appeal, Mary contends that the appellate court incorrectly held that the trial court's order terminating maintenance was a final and appealable order. According to Mary, a postdissolution order that does not dispose of a pending petition for rule to show cause does not constitute a final and appealable order in the absence of a Rule 304(a) finding.

Accordingly, she contends that without a final and appealable order, the appellate court was without jurisdiction to rule and the judgment must be vacated. In light of Mary's argument, we first address whether the order terminating maintenance was a final order.

I. Jurisdiction

The question before us, whether an order is final and appealable absent a Rule 304(a) finding where a contempt petition remains pending, is one of law, which we review de novo. Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill.2d 324, 332, 266 Ill.Dec. 915, 775 N.E.2d 987 (2002).

Rule 304(a) provides, in pertinent part:

"If multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both. * * * In the absence of such a finding, any judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all the parties." 210 Ill.2d R. 304(a).

"An order is final and appealable if it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits or disposes of the rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or a separate part thereof." R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises, Inc., 181 Ill.2d 153, 159, 229 Ill.Dec. 533, 692 N.E.2d 306 (1998). Absent a Rule 304(a) finding, a final order disposing of fewer than all of the claims is not an appealable order and does not become appealable until all of the claims have been resolved. Marsh v. Evangelical Covenant Church of Hinsdale, 138 Ill.2d 458, 464, 150 Ill.Dec. 572, 563 N.E.2d 459 (1990). This court has defined a "claim" as "any right, liability or matter raised in an action." Marsh, 138 Ill.2d at 465, 150 Ill. Dec. 572, 563 N.E.2d 459. The rule was meant "to discourage piecemeal appeals in the absence of a just reason and to remove the uncertainty which existed when a final judgment was entered on fewer than all of the matters in controversy." Marsh, 138 Ill.2d at 465, 150 Ill.Dec. 572, 563 N.E.2d 459.

The appellate court below held that a contempt petition, although a "part" of the underlying action, does not raise a "claim for relief" in that action within the meaning of Rule 304(a). 376 Ill.App.3d at 763, 315 Ill.Dec. 806, 877 N.E.2d 1135. Therefore, according to the court, the order terminating maintenance was a final order as to all "claims" in the dissolution action and required no Rule 304(a) finding to be final and appealable. We disagree.

The appellate court held that the pending contempt petition in this case is entirely separate from the dissolution proceeding. In so doing, the court departed from two previous decisions in which the opposite conclusion was reached. See In re Marriage of Colangelo, 355 Ill.App.3d 383 388-89, 290 Ill.Dec. 986, 822 N.E.2d 571 (2005) (absent a Rule 304(a) finding, a party could not appeal the denial of a civil contempt petition while a postdissolution petition to increase child support was pending); In re Marriage of Alyassir, 335 Ill.App.3d 998, 270 Ill.Dec. 419, 782 N.E.2d 978 (2003) (absent a Rule 304(a) finding, a party could not appeal a judgment on a postdissolution petition to increase child support while a civil...