Kent v. Wells

• Decision Date: 30 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-19-1300,1-19-1300
• Citation: 2020 IL App (1st) 191300 -U
• Parties: LATASHA L. KENT, Petitioner-Counter-Respondent-Appellee, v. WILLIAM L. WELLS, Respondent-Counter-Petitioner-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 191300-U

LATASHA L. KENT, Petitioner-Counter-Respondent-Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM L. WELLS, Respondent-Counter-Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 1-19-1300

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT THIRD DIVISION

September 30, 2020

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County

2017-D-350000

Honorable James P. Pieczonka, Judge Presiding

JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Howse and Justice Ellis concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Interlocutory appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 2 This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an attorney fee award. The parties, Latasha L. Kent and William L. Wells, had a child together in 2015, and in 2017, Ms. Kent petitioned for child and medical support and Mr. Wells counter-petitioned for an allocation of parental responsibilities and parenting time. As the parties continued to litigate in 2018, the circuit court appointed the minor child a guardian ad litem (GAL), attorney Joanna L. Challacombe, whose fees are the subject of this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(6) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).

Page 2

¶ 3 Pro se appellant Mr. Wells was not in court when the GAL's fee request was heard. The circuit court determined $7653 in fees were reasonable and necessary, in addition to the $1000 retainer paid by each party. The court assigned one-third of the fees to Ms. Kent and two-thirds to Mr. Wells. In a motion to vacate the default order, Mr. Wells contended he had been away from home and was not aware of the GAL's motion until after it had been granted. Ms. Challacombe responded that she notified the parents by email. Mr. Wells replied that he had submitted a certification for exemption from e-filing, due to a lack of home computer or Internet access, and that he did not provide an email address of record. The record on appeal includes numerous certifications for exemption from e-filing. The circuit court denied the motion to vacate. Both parents filed motions to reconsider, which the court also denied. This appeal followed.

¶ 4 Neither Ms. Kent nor Ms. Challacombe has filed a response to Mr. Wells's appeal. While we can decide the merits of an appeal without an appellee brief when the record and issues are simple, First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133, 345 N.E.2d 493, 495 (1976), we will not do so in this case because we lack appellate jurisdiction.

¶ 5 A reviewing court has a duty to consider, sua sponte, its...