michelle thirty six months of reviewable maintenance at the rate of one thousand five hundred dollars the judgment required michelle to file a petition to review support if she wanted to receive support beyond the initial thirty six months prescribed we shall do that on july st two thousand and fourteen which i would like to refer to as the st petition for review that st petition for review maintenance at the rate of one thousand five hundred dollars per month period maintenance shall be subject to review on or before september th two thousand and fifteen period hearing date  issue of further extension to be set for september th two thousand and fifteen at nine thirty am without further no the nd extension of michele's maintenance came by way of order on june twenty four two thousand and sixteen the focus of our st issue on the subject matter jurisdiction issue is that the june twenty four two thousand and sixteen order was entered absent there being filed a petition or motion by michelle asking for that nd extension of maine so the golden rule is that the circuit courts acquire jurisdiction by virtue of the only state constitution of dollars and the only consideration is whether the alleged claim falls within the general class of cases that the court has inherent power to hear and to determine sixteen we contest is that that order was answered absent any petition or motion which was necessary in order to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and that order because of that is void and not enforceable in support of the st district case of lincoln the williams in ligon that was apparent to j c and the biological father argued in the circuit court that he should have custody and he did not have a petition on file requesting custody or requesting parenting time circuit  that he would be awarded custody of the child and the appellate court reversed stating that because the father had not filed a claim or petition to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court that the circuit court was without the power to award him custody similarly judge a rd district case rogers versus rogers which is a child support case the facts of the case are very important to the understanding that i'm trying to convey in roger is the husband was paying child support in the court in the court suspended is obligation to pay child support pending further employment and the order read that the husband was the former husband was required to notify the wife and her attorney when he returns back to work so that the wife then would be able to go back to the circuit court file a petition and receive m husband notified the wife that he had gone back to work still no petition filed by the mother to reinstate the child support the mother filed laws of the station for enforcement of the previous child support order and the circuit court found the father to be in contempt of court reversed stating because the mother did not file another petition asking that the child support  reinstated that the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to order the father to pay child support regardless of the fact that he went back to work months before the wife ever got back to court to file her petition for enforcement nor are there any provisions in the order which would lend one to believe that the parties agreed to rely on the initial position for review file back in july  agreed that the initial petition for review of maintenance would serve as the petition for the nd review of maintenance in that situation the appellate court said that the parties were free to agree that the petition although it's usually cases once would serve as the petition or the nd review so it's i'm trying to be careful and say the appropriate things to support my argument and the argument isn't that in culture the parties agreed to re proceeding little bit different than in our case white's maintenance post the creek husband finally the decision for termination of maintenance there were no pleadings filed by the maintenance recipient mrs antro filed no petition that when mr can try to file the petition for terminations of maintenance that in both the trial court subject matter jurisdiction to do just that there was no pleading on file capable of invoking the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to review maintenance or to extend the necessity to ask for maintenance is not always nor in response to a petition the court still has subject matter jurisdiction to address the issue of initial maintenance and that is because section five hundred and three dealing with property is so intricately involved with section five hundred and four dealing with maintenance that the circuit court could not really decide one without citing the other but it's different and posting free proceedings because impose the creep proceedings obviously or not revisiting the distribution or division of property rights in anticipation that there may be an argument posed by my colleague robert should have addressed the trial court much much sooner robert participated in the hearing on that nd review of maintenance which resulted in the twenty six dollars team order he had an opportunity to raise the subject matter jurisdiction issue as an affirmative defense or a motion for dismissal in the court below but he  it's much too late now to raise it for the st time on appeal we have relied upon the case of haiti with him for versus and it also can be raised for the st time on appeal also cited below bang for that proposition those are all the arguments i have in support of issue number one relative to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction i guess what we would be remiss if i didn't ask but it teleport what i believe the appropriate disposition would be under those in mrs or mr files the appropriate petition for review until then i guess the original maintenance provisions of the original judgment or the alternative the december th teen order would remain in full force and effect the other part of my argument is i don't think that what michelle's actions in the circuit court i don't think that those actions were the result of any oversight in filing a petition for review of maintenance i think that michelle relied upon the fact that the court granted maintenance the st extension december five two thousand and fourteen so why not have a redo why not ensure the possibility that i would be successful on the same titian it were once probably going to work again and i don't think that michelle should be rewarded for that strategy that's a strategy that michelle that has proven to be successful for michelle and it is not without risk but nevertheless i don't think circumstances followed in order to vast to trigger scuse me to invoke the illinois appellate court subject matter jurisdiction well what which will court once the petitions for contribution to attorneys these had been adjudicated in twenty nine feet so when the nd extension an extension of maintenance but i also want my attorneys these eight the attorneys these issues did not get resolved until two thousand and nineteen and then keep the maintenance issue alive during that time the i represent the apple e michel reads a st like that talk a little bit about the appellate jurisdictional issue is the court is aware there's a split in authority in the illinois appellate court as to whether pos are regarded as separate actions or separate claims within the same action the rd district in a hurry and follow the rule that opposed to creep additions are separate actions so that you can file a notice of appeal when opposed to one is a final order on and on opposed to creep petition without a rule thirty dollars for a finding when the remaining post to creep petitions are unrelated and what happened in this case my client filed a petition to extend maintenance for reasonable attorneys fees and other relief on july st two thousand and fourte cork had other matters it had to decide but in the meantime in the summer seven my client filed a separate petition relating seeking contribution for post in korea tourney's fees it was called plaintiffs petition for contribution towards attorneys fees from the defendant and that was filed the summer th two thousand and fifteen the hearing on the issue of further extension of maintenance was held intermittently from january through february of two thousand and sixteen and on june th there were two orders entered one was on the petition for extension of maintenance and that extended robert's maintenance obligation until further order of the court and provided that it may be subject to review after robert had made ninety six monthly payments upon robert petition michelle had filed for contribution and december th two thousand and fifteen so we got a final order on the question of the extension of maintenance and pending proceedings on a separate petition for contribution to attorney's fees and it was exactly the situation they had in the cases i cited marriage of the merits are dumber a and a marriage of car in dumber  a there was a petition to remove the child to new jersey on the st day of the hearing and they have petitioned the other spouse filed a petition for contribution to attorneys fees the matter proceeded the court denied the wife's petition to remove the child to new jersey she filed a notice of appeal immediately even though there was still a pending petition for contribution relating to  fees relating to the removal petition nipa court said we have jurisdiction because that remaining post the creeper titian for contributions to attorney fees is unrelated to the removal issue so she didn't have to wait until the attorney's fees issue was resolved she filed a notice of appeal i think like a day after the order was entered in car you had a similar situation there was a petition to modify child support only in car and there was a another petition for contribution in car the petition to modify child support was ruled on and the spouse who wanted to appeal that w didn't file zoners of peel until three years later even if this court follow the rule that posted creep in patients are new claims in the same action like the st as strict the notice of appeal filed november of two thousand would still be insufficient because at the time they had noticed was filed there are lots of other unresolved post decree protections and there was never a finding under supreme court rule thr i never had a chance to resolve it archer's response would but when i was preparing for oral argument i found a case which if i have to i'll be pleased to file a motion for leave to cite additional authority but the case in the case that just saying this order is final an appealable is not sufficient for rule thirty dollars for a finding there has to be language there is no just reason to the lay appeal or this order is subject to immediate appeal something like that the case not reference the june th two thousand and sixteen order extending maintenance the notice of appeal just said we're appealing all the orders entered on october th and any procedures which were any orders which were steps in the procedural progression leading to those orders the problem is and i cited clarke versus going out in my brief annoyed and that said quote a notice of appeal will be deemed to include an unspecified interlock it tor order when the interlocutory order was a step in the procedural progression leading to the order specified in the notice of appeal but the june th two thousand and sixteen order extending maintenance that was not a step in the procedural progression leading to the order and whether robert hit the pay my client had to contribute towards my client's attorney's fees so they didn't they didn't specify quote without further notice which indicates to me that nobody has to give notice or file any additional petitions the court was going to hear the question of further extension pursuant to the original petition that was filed and that's basically what happened a cult where the trial court had jurisdiction to decide the question of maintenance and the court set a future day for hearing on the extension of maintenance nobody filed another petition if the court went ahead and adjudicated the issue of review of maintenance and it went up on appeal and the issue of  on the same petition it doesn't lose subject matter jurisdiction just because it grants part of the relief requested and such a further hearing i want to briefly address the issue about the guidelines so i think there's  important point to make and that under the law prior to the guidelines the court considered all of the statutory factors in determining whether there was should be maintenance whether the amount of maintenance and duration of maintenance under the guidelines the court considers the factors to determine whether there should be maintenance but if i was the guidelines on a mountain duration and the the statute says any non guidelines award of maintenance shall be made after the court's consideration of all relevant factors set forth in the states so she did what was required what would have been required for her to do prior to the enactment of the guidelines law so that the any error in her determination of the guideline statute applied was harmless of descent to back she's already done she's already harmless and finally robert argued robert points the language of the trial court stated that maintenance could not she couldn't terminate maintenance in her review order because of the length of the marriage and he says that proves that she believed she had to follow the guidelines as that the ration that's not correct she actually did follow she didn't follow the guidelines as the duration what she said was after considering the bible four dollars fifty one cents factors the court finds maintenance should be extended for period of time equal to that consistent with the news that for guidelines for she she ended up applying a duration which was the same as the guideline amount you have there consideration of all the statutory factors when she says i can't tour i can't terminate maintenance after that guideline duration is over she wasn't judge did say on page are three of the record per section bypass she said see five it's a five the court must make specific findings regarding the basis for modification as well as the amount of nature and duration of the was not part of the guideline statute because i have a couple more minutes i'll just briefly address the use of this crash an issue the judge made a finding that my client was short one thousand one dollar eighty four cents per month even after she received maintenance and her salary she was still short a one thousand a month was a thirteen year marriage she was a homemaker up until several months before the divorce and she became employed as a medical assistant her sailor at the time the hearing was thirty five thousand nine hundred and sixty two dollars forty seven cents roberts was one hundred and thirty five thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars a year and according to robert's own financial affidavit he had a surplus every month which would have been one thousand three hundred and seventy dollars if you stop spending five hundred and sixty dollars a month on sporting activities for his teenage son so i think that it can't be said that no reasonable court would determine that main and should continue as  as set by the trial judge let's let the court has any further questions i think i've covered most of my points jurisdiction in real real for a real three of three there st has to be an order entered which is the result of a petition having been filed because the measuring point begins with the relief requested in the particular position if we look back and assume for the sake of argument that the adjudicated did not get addressed until october two thousand and nineteen after the court directed each of the parties to update their financial affidavits and to exchange information on and sixteen for purposes of the determination of contribution of attorneys robert filed a motion to reconsider an amended motion to reconsider the award once the trial court granted michelle six thousand dollars in attorney's fees robert that order didn't get resolved until october twenty five the notice of appeal came within thirty days of the attorneys these hundreds of dancers petition so i i just it's difficult for me to get my head around the jurisdiction of the appellate court when there is no petition for the nd review of maintenance from which we begin to determine whether there are any relevance to the issue of maintenance i've resigned and what those decisions were in the free isn't that what ariel forays all about  is not compulsory it's not a requirement send a party appeal under rule through for any more than just that that's absolutely true but it is also you can't appeal without it you don't have to use it if you want to appeal you have and that is you do have to use it that's correct i don't dispute that and you have a thrill for a finding here we do not have a thirty for  petition which you want to appeal it's ok to go ahead and appeal that under three o three even though there are other petitions pending is that the philosophy in a hurry and once why would we let a litigant the put in a situation where additional petitions could be filed after the ruling that the other party wants to take an appeal  again it's it's putting that the cart before the horse when ms wimmer says this is there is no jurisdiction and i keep saying well there is no petition filed from which we can measure what were the issues adjudicated thank you