In re Marriage of Javadi
| Decision Date | 16 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4-21-0735 |
| Parties | In re MARRIAGE OF ELAHE JAVADI, Petitioner-Appellee, and AMIR MARMARCHI, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County No. 18D307 Honorable Amy L. McFarland, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: (1) The trial court did not err by refusing to review its final parenting plan order at the time of the hearing on the remaining financial issues in the case.
¶ 2 Respondent, Amir Marmarchi, appeals following the dissolution of his marriage to petitioner, Elahe Javadi. He argues the trial court erred by (1) failing to review its parenting plan order at a later hearing to resolve the parties' financial matters, (2) ordering that Elahe's maintenance payments to him be directed toward mortgage payments on the former marital residence, and (3) summarily sentencing him for direct criminal contempt without affording him an opportunity to make a statement in allocution. We affirm.
¶ 4 In July 2003, the parties were married in Iran. During the marriage, they resided in Illinois and had one child, N.M born in August 2013. In August 2018, Elahe filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
¶ 5 In July 2021, the trial court conducted hearings on the issues of parenting time and decision-making responsibilities. Elahe presented the testimony of several witnesses, and both parties also testified. At the conclusion of the hearings, the court stated it had concerns regarding Amir's "mental wellness" and found the evidence before it supported restricting his parental responsibilities pursuant to section 603.10 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/603.10 (West 2020)). Specifically, the court found Amir had engaged in conduct that seriously endangered N.M.'s mental, moral and emotional health, and impaired her emotional development. It ordered Amir "to obtain a mental health assessment by a licensed clinical psychologist with a release to the guardian ad litem" and to continue with therapy as recommended by his counselor. The court allocated no in-person parenting time to Amir but permitted him to have contact with N.M. via "WhatsApp" for up to 15 minutes a day. The court otherwise allocated all parenting time and full parental decision-making authority to Elahe.
¶ 6 After the trial court detailed its findings and stated it had" conclude[d] [its] oral ruling," it asked whether either party had questions or needed clarification. The following colloquy then occurred between the court and Amir's counsel, Floyd Dailey:
¶ 7 On August 17, 2021, the trial court's written parenting plan order was filed, restricting Amir's parenting time and allocating all parenting time and parental decision-making authority to Elahe. The written order made no reference to review or modification.
¶ 8 Following the entry of the trial court's parenting order, Dailey was allowed to withdraw as Amir's legal counsel. Amir then represented himself throughout the remainder of the underlying proceedings.
¶ 9 On September 14, 2021, a status hearing was conducted in the matter via video conference. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing. However, the trial court's docket entry states as follows:
¶ 10 On November 17, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing in the case on all remaining issues, including child support maintenance, and the allocation of property and debts. At the outset of the hearing, Amir raised the issue of parenting time with N.M., and the following colloquy occurred:
¶ 11 At the hearing, both parties testified. Relevant to this appeal, evidence showed that during the marriage, the parties resided in a home located at 419 Warren Avenue in Normal, Illinois, and both were employed by Illinois State University (ISU). Elahe testified she and Amir worked in separate departments at ISU and that Amir had master's degrees in finance and economics, and a bachelor's degree in computer science. At the time the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in August 2018, Elahe was earning approximately $96, 000 per year, and Amir was earning approximately $38, 600 per year.
¶ 12 After the parties separated in October 2017, Elahe purchased a residence located at 208 Keiser Drive in Normal while Amir continued to live at the Warren Avenue residence. In February 2018, Amir filed for bankruptcy, resulting in all of his debts being discharged. In 2019, Amir stopped working for ISU and, thereafter, received unemployment benefits. Elahe testified Amir's employment records from ISU showed he received "high remarks" or "good reviews." Also, ISU "indicated that they would rehire him" and made employment offers that Amir did not accept. Elahe believed Amir had "not reapplied to ISU in order to reduce his income." Amir represented that he was applying for jobs but not spending as much time doing so as he had in the past.
¶ 13 Elahe testified that following the parties' separation, she paid the mortgages for both the Warren Avenue and the Keiser Avenue residences. At some point, Elahe "fell behind" on mortgage payments for the Warren Avenue residence. She asked Amir to assist her, but he did not do so. In 2020, foreclosure proceedings were initiated in connection with that residence. Elahe asserted that when the parties separated, they owed approximately $62, 000 for the Warren Avenue residence. Since that time, their indebtedness had grown to over $77, 000. Elahe submitted a document the parties signed "to modify the mortgage" on the Warren Avenue property. The document-signed by Elahe on May 27, 2021, and signed by Amir on June 29, 2021-identified the debt associated with that property as totaling $77, 786.99.
¶ 14 In the foreclosure proceedings, the parties attended mediation and were required to make three monthly payments of $1307.05 to get caught up on their missed mortgage payments. Elahe testified she made those payments in March, April, and May 2021, and the foreclosure action was dismissed. Since that time, from June to November 2021, she had also been making monthly mortgage payments for the Warren Avenue residence of $653.39. According to Elahe, Amir had not made any payments toward the Warren Avenue residence since the foreclosure. Amir acknowledged having funds available "to take [his] house out of foreclosure" but not using them for that purpose.
¶ 15 Elahe proposed that the trial court award the Warren Avenue residence to Amir but expressed concern that he would not make the mortgage payments for the property in the future. She noted her name was still on the mortgage for the property and missed payments had negatively impacted her credit in the past. Elahe asked the court to allow her to continue making mortgage payments for the Warren Avenue residence until it was refinanced or sold and to have her payments offset against her maintenance obligation to Amir. She also asked to receive a credit toward maintenance for past mortgage payments she made "to get the house out of foreclosure." Further, Elahe denied that she ever received any form of support from Amir and stated she believed it was unlikely that she would ever receive child support from him on a consistent basis.
¶ 16 The record reflects that during Amir's pro se...
To continue reading
Request your trial