No. 2-- 06--1060 Fil ed: 12-21-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re MARRIAGE OF NANCY K NOERR, ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f La ke Co un t y. Petitioner-A

ppelle e, ) ) and ) No. 90-- D--2058 ) DAVID KNOERR, ) Ho no r ab le ) Joseph R. Wal deck, Re sp on den

t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEBO WMA

N del i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In th i s p ost di ss ol

uti on pr oce ed i n g, r es pon den t, Da vid Kno er r , ap pe als a judg ment g ra nt ing t he petitions

of petiti oner, Nancy

Kn oerr, for (1) co nt ribut ion t o t he co llege exp ense s o f the part ies'
so n, Mic ha el

Knoerr (see 750 ILCS 5/513 (West 2006)) and (2) increas ed chi ld s upport (see 750 ILCS 5/510 (a) (W

est 200 6)). Responden

t contends that t he j udgme nt is based on an

in correct factual finding an d t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r o ne o us ly as su med t ha t pr o ce ed s fr o m a h o me equi ty l oan were part of respondent's n

et in come (see 750 ILC S 5/505(a)(3) (West 2006)). However, we do not r each t he
meri ts of re spon

den t's c ase be caus e, i

n eva l uati ng th e rec ordbefo re us, we d et er mine that we lack j urisd i cti on to d o so. I. BACKG ROUND The parties were m

arried i n Decem ber 1977 and h ave fo ur childre n: Ada m and E ric, who
were em anci pated at al lperti

nent ti mes; Michael , born

Dece m ber 15, 19 84; and Ch

ri sti ne , bornNo. 2-- 06--1060

-2-

August 26, 1989. On Septem ber 21, 1990, a judgm

ent dis solv

ed the parties'

ma rriage and awarded petitioner cus t od y of t he childr en. Lat e in 20 05 , pe t it io n er pe ti ti on ed to re qui rere sp on den

t to con tri b ute to Mi ch ae l 's col l eg e e xp en se s. ( Th e p eti

ti on is not in the record, but r espondent f il ed a response o n N o ve mbe r30 , 20 05
. ) On Ap r il 7, 20 06 , pe

ti ti on er pe ti ti on ed to i n crea se ch i l d suppor t, re lyi ng on a trial

court order o f October 7, 2003. On Ju l y 11 , 20 06 , the tr

i al cou rt hel d a trial on b oth pet itio ns and en

tered a judgm

ent requiri

ng responden

t (1) t o contr ib

ute 65% o f Mic

hael 's an nual coll ege expenses; a

nd (2) to pay chi

ld s upport of $1,750 per month, retroactive to April 7, 2006; pay $213 for heal

th and den

tal i nsuran ce for Jul y 2006, wi

th the monthl

y a mount to increas e once a

ye ar un t il Au gu st 20 09 , aft er wh ich he wo uld pay $390 monthl

y;and pay

$75 monthl

y toward uni

nsured
medi cal ex pen ses . On August 7, 2006, respondent moved to reconsi der, arguing i n pa rt th at th e h om e e qui ty loan was not in

come. On Septem

ber 8, 2006, petitioner

petitioned f

or anaw ard

of attorn ey f ee s f or a previ ous contempt proceeding. On Septembe

r 11, 2006, s

he peti tion ed f or arule to show cause, alleging that respondent was refus in g to compl

y w ith the J uly 11, 2006, order. On Septem ber 26, 2006, t he t rial co ur t denied re spo ndent 's mot ion t o r eco nsider , g ra nt ed p et itio ner 's fee p et itio n, a nd conti nue d peti tion er' s petiti on f or a rule to show

caus e. On October 24, 2006, r es po nd en t filed his noticeof appeal , appeali

ng the Jul y 11, 200 6, or der and t he Se pt ember 2 6, 200 6, or der , d enying his
m oti on for reconsideration. Nei

ther trial court order con

tai ne d l anguag e purs

uan t to Suprem

e Court Rul e 304 (a) (21 0 Ill . 2d R. 3 04(a))
. II. AN AL YSIS While the pa rti esha ve not add re ssed t his co ur t 's jurisd ictio n, we h av e a n i n de pen den t du ty to ver ify our j uri sd i cti on an d di sm i ss th e a pp ea l i f we l ack i t. I n r e M ar r iag e o f Ga ud io , 368 Ill . App.No. 2-- 06--1060

-3-

3d 1 53, 156 (2 006 ). We no t e t hat pet itio ner 's pe t itio n for a r ule t o s how cau se w as p ending a t t he t ime that respondent fi

le d hi s notice

of appeal , and the questi on bef ore us is wh

ether r es po nd en t co uld appeal without a Rul e 304(a) fi

ndi ng wh il e the p et ition for a rule

to show cause was

stil l pe ndi ng. Rule 304(a) pro vides:

"If m ul tip l e parti es or m ul tip l e cl ai m s f or r elie f are i

nvol ved i n an action, an a

ppeal
ma y be t ak en fr o m a

fina l ju dgm

en t asto one

or m ore b ut f ew er th an al l of the pa rti esor cla ims o nly if t he t r ial c o ur t ha s ma de an ex pr es s w r it t en find ing t ha t t he r e is no just rea son f orde l ay i ng ei the r en f orce men t orappeal

or bot h. * ** I n t he abs ence of su ch a finding, any judg ment that adj udic ates fewer than all the c la

im s or the rights an

d li abi li tiesof f ewer than all th e p ar ti es i s n ot en f orc ea b l e or appe al ab l e a n d is s ub j ec t to rev i si on at any time befo re t he entry of a j udgme nt adjudi catin g all the c la

im s, righ ts, and li abi li ties of all the pa rties." 210 Il l . 2d R. 3 04(a). Under a rec en t Second Di stri ct opi

ni on, In re Marri age of Gutma n , 376 Il l . Ap

p. 3d 75 8, 763 ( 2007) , we wou l d have j urisd

i cti on in this case, as the Gutman

co ur t he ld t ha t civ il

con tem pt p eti ti on s i n i ti ate sep ar at e pr oc eed ings and not "claims" wit hin the a ct ion, t her eby exce pt ingthem f rom R ul e 304 (a). However, we bel

ie ve that Gutman's

conc l usi on, that pen

di ng or den i ed ci vi l contem pt peti tions are not sub j ect to Rul

e 304 (a), i s b ase d on f

l awed anal y si s, an d we overrul

e i t. In Gutman , while

the respondent's c iv

il contempt petition was pendi ng, she appealed a trial courtorder deny

in g her m ot ion to vacate an

order tha t termi na ted h er m ai nten ance a ward. Gutman , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 759. The o rde r termi natin g her m ai ntenan ce award did not contain l anguage pursuan t to Rule 304(a ). Gutman , 376 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 760. In i ts an al y si s, Gutman

concl uded that altho ugh t he res

pon de nt' s c onte

m pt pe ti ti on a nd the pe ti ti on to ter m i n ate mai n ten an ce were"p ar

tsNo. 2-- 06--1060

-4-

of t he same d isso lut ion ac t ion, the con tem pt pe ti ti on d i d n ot raise a ' cl ai m f or re l i ef ' i n th at a cti on, f or t he purpo ses of Rule 304(a)." Gutman , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 761. To rea ch thi s con cl usi on, Gutman reli ed on Kazu bow ski v. Kazub owski , 45 Il l . 2d 405 , 415 (1 970). Gutman , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 761- 62. Howe

ver, Gutman's

con cl us i on wasi

nc orre ct f ortwo reasons. First , it misapplied t he ho lding of Kazub owski , f

orgoin g y ears of leg al pr ece dent t hat hold s t hat only co nt empt or der s impos ingfi nes orimpriso nment may

b e a pp ea l ed wi th out a Rul e 304(a) fi

ndi ng. See I n r e M ar r iag e o f Alyas sir , 335 I ll. App. 3d 9 98 ( 2nd Dist . 20 03) ; In re M arr i ag e of Co lan ge lo , 355 Ill . App. 3d 383, 38 8 ( 2n d D i st. 2005)
. Second, it es sent ially re nder ed R ule 30 4( b)( 5) (2 10 I ll. 2d R . 3 04( b)( 5) ) meaning less by ex pan di ng th at ex cl usi on b ey ond i ts ex pli ci t la ngu age. In Kazub owski , the trial

co ur t fo un d t he de fen da nt t o be in wi l l f ul con tem pt, ord ered

h i m to pay fine s, an d o r de r ed him t o t he co un t y jail if he di d n o t pa y t he f i ne s. Kazub owski , 45 Ill . 2d at 407. The plaint iff

ar gue d t hat wit hou t a Ru le 304 (a ) finding , the defendan t co uld no t app eal t he
co nt empt or der , be cau se o t her pet itio ns rem ai ne d pen di ng i n the m atter. Kazub owski , 45 Ill . 2d at 414. The suprem

e court held that where a

sanction had

been im posed, the contempt order was f in al and ap pe ala ble wit ho ut Ru le 304(a ) l anguag e. Kazub owski , 45 Ill . 2d at 414-15. The supr em e court expl ai ned: "There is a ut ho r it y *** f or t he proposition tha t where an order is

in eff ect specif ical ly enf orceable by

use of the cont empt pro cess i t i s f i na l an d a ppe al ab l e w he the r or not th er e h as b een a f i n di n g p ur suan

t to [ Ru le 304(a)] . [Citat ions.] This court has also
r ec ogniz ed

t ha t o r din ar ily an a dju dic at io n in a co nt emp t pr o ce ed ing is fina l an d a pp ea lab le because it i s an ori gin

al special proceedin

g, collateral to, and in

dependen t o f, the ca se inNo. 2-- 06--1060

-5-

whi ch the cont empt arises wher e t he impos itio n of t he sanction does not directly aff ect t he outc ome of

the pri nc i pal ac ti on ." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Kazub owski , 45 Ill . 2d at 414-15. Gutman t o o k t he ab o ve fr o m Ka zu bowski an d e ss en ti al l y el i m i n ate d th e em ph as ize d l an gu ag e to co nclude t hat "alt hou gh a ci vi l c ontempt petition is a part of the underl yi ng acti on, it does not r aise
a 'claim for r elief' in that act ion. In de ed , i f a c i v i l con tem pt p eti ti on wereb oth

a pa rt of t he und er lyi

ng ac ti on and a ' cla im fo rr elie f' in t ha t ac t io n, t he r e w o uld be nothi ng ori gi na l and spe cial

ab out it at al

l ." Gutman , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 763. Kazub owski nei ther hel d nor suggested that a pendi ng contem

pt pe ti ti on ora deni al of such a petition i

mpl ic ated a right to appeal wi thout a Rul e 304(a) fi

ndi ng, as the Gutman

court posi

ts. Gutman , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 7 63. Ra

the r, i t i nd i ca ted tha t the i m pos i ti on of fi nes or i mprisonm ent was wha

t required such

"origi nal special proceed ing[s] " to be treat ed di f f eren tly
. Kazub owski , 45 Ill . 2d at 414-15. The Kazub owski

court itsel

f ci ted People ex

rel. Gen eral Mot ors Corp. v. Bua , 37 Ill . 2d 180, 183 -84 (1967), which

in volv ed an order that held G eneral Moto rs in

contempt of court, st ruck General Mo t or s' answ er t o t he plaint iff 's am ended com

pla in t, and entered judgm

ent agai nst General Mot ors. The Bua

co ur t de t er mined t ha t t he o r de r , wh ile couch ed i n ter m s of con tem pt, was not fi

nal and app ealable be cau se t he sa nc ti on impose d dir ect ly i

mpact ed t he o ut co me of t he pr incipal act ion. Bua , 37 Ill . 2d at 190-91. The cour t explai ned that t he "i

mposition of a fi

ne or im prisonm ent as a sanction for contempt is fi nal and appealab le b ecause it i s an ori gin al special proceedin

g, coll ateral to, and i ndependent of, the case in whi ch the contempt ar ises." Bua , 37 Ill . 2d a t 19 1. While
no r mally such a s an ct io n w o uld no t dir ec t ly affe ct t he o ut co me of t he pr incipal act ion and wo uld be appealabl e, t he o rd er in Bua

did affec t t he o ut co me of t he und er lyi ng action. Bua , 37 Ill . 2d at 191. Kazub owski 's hold ing is co nsist ent wi th Bua , a s i

ts c on tem pt order i m pos ed a f i n e or i m pri son men t,No. 2-- 06--1060

-6-

whi ch , unlike in Bua , did n ot aff ect the out come of the pri nci pal action, thus m

aki ng i t an origi nal spe cial procee di ng th at was f i na l and app eal

ab l e. Kazub owski , 45 Ill . 2d at 414-15. Other cas es ha ve simila r ly

he l d tha t, wi thout Rul e 304 (a) l anguag e, ci

vi l contem pt orders a

re fina l an d a pp ea lab le o nly

wher e sa nct ions ha ve bee n impose d. In In re Marriage of Al ush , 172 I ll. App. 3d 6 46, 647 -4 9 ( 198 8) , t he pe ti ti one r ap pe al ed f rom the de ni al of hi s p eti ti on f or a r ule to s how
cause while the re spo ndent 's pet itio n for mod ifi cat ion o f her fo re ign divo rc e de cr ee w as p ending. The order de ny

i ng the pe ti ti one r' s p eti ti on fo r a rule to show cause, howeve r, contained a R

ule 304(a) fi ndi ng, and t he co ur t allowe d t he ap pea l, st at ingt hat t he co nt empt or der was final and ap pe ala ble si nce it t er minated t he l i

tig ati on b etween the parti es on som e se parate part of the l i tig ati on. Al

ush , 172 I ll. App. 3d at 650. Whi le Gutman

dismisses t he significance o f the Rule 3 04( a) finding in Al ush , t he ho lding o f Al

ush did n ot specifi cally in dic ate that a R ule 30 4( a) fin di ng wa s u nn ec es sa ry or i n si gn i f i ca n t, as Gutman

reads . Hen

ce, we f i nd th e pres ence of

the R ul e 304 (a) f

inding no t o nly relev an t but si gni f i can t, as we l l
. In Alyas sir , the p eti

tion er f i l ed a two-c ount postdissol uti on petiti

on se eki ng ( 1 ) inc r ea se d c hild supp ort an d ( 2) a r ule t o sho w c au se as t o wh y t he r es po nd en t sho uld no t be he ld in contempt f or faili ng to pa y medi cal bi l l s c ove red by the di ss ol ution j udgm en t. The t rial co ur t gr ant ed r elief on t he pe ti ti on for increa sed child sup po rt but co nt inued t he pe t it io n fo ra r ule to show c aus e. Alyas sir , 335 I ll. A pp . 3d at 9 99 . W

h i l e th e p eti tion f or a rule to show cause was s til l pe ndi ng, the petiti oner appealed th e order to i

n cr ea se ch i l d suppor t, arguin g that it was an

i ns uf f i ci en t in crea se. Alyas sir , 335 I ll. App. 3d at 999. This court dis mi ssed the peti

tioner's appeal , holdi

ng that without a Rul e 304(a) fi ndi ng, the order was no t ap pe ala ble un ti l the res ol ution of the pe nd i ng pe ti ti on f or a r ule to s how
cause. Alyas sir , 335 Ill . App. 3d at 999-1000. T hi s court not ed that Rul e 304(a) preserves the tria lNo. 2-- 06--1060

-7-

co ur t 's ab i l i

ty to ex ercise di scre ti on

i n man ag i n g p i ec em

ea l appe als, wh

i ch b est se rves th e goal of j udi cial economy . Alyas sir , 335 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 1001. Likew ise, in Co lan ge lo , th e re sp ond en t ap pe al ed an orde r de ny i ng he r peti ti on f or aru l e to show cause, wh

ic h wasen tered on Novem ber 10, 20 03, an

d an order gra nti ng s um mary judg ment to t he pe ti

ti one r on the res pon de nt' s p eti

ti on f or i nc rea se d c hi

l d supp ort, w

hi ch wa s ente red on Decem ber 16, 200 3. The

resp ondent f

i l ed h er notice of a ppea l of these orderson January

15, 2004. Co lan ge lo , 355 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 387. The peti

tion er arg ued that the a

ppel l ate court l ac ke d j urisd

i cti on of the orde r de ny i ng the res pon de nt' s p eti ti on f ora rule to show cause, be cause he rnotice of appe al
was f i l ed b ey on d 3 0 day

s of th e e ntr y of that order. Co lan ge lo , 3 55 I ll. App. 3d a t 387 . T he appe l l ate co ur t disag re ed be cau se t he o rd er denying the re spon den t's p eti tion f or arule to sho w cause did not contain a Rul

e 3 04( a) f

i nd i ng an d, th ere f ore, sh e c oul d n ot ap pe al un ti l he r peti ti on f or in creased chi l d sup port was re sol

ve d. Co lan ge lo , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 387. We stated t hat the fac t t hat
a co nt empt pr oc eed ingis an "o riginal spe cial pr oc eed ing t hat is co llater al to and inde pend ent of t he case f rom whi ch the contem

pt arises m

erely establ is hes that the deni

al of th e p eti ti on am oun ts to a fi nal jud gme nt as t o a c laim

withi n the mean

in g of Rule 304(a)." Co lan ge lo , 355 Ill . App. 3d at 389- 90. Th us, a civ il co nt emp t pe t it io n r ais es a c laim w it hin t he meaning o f Rule 30 4( a) if i t is pend ing
ordeni ed . A

con tem pt order i s tre ate d s ep ara

tel y onl y when the re i s a n i m pos i ti on of f i ne s or i m pri son men t. Gutman di sp ose d of Alyas sir and Co lan ge lo by re lying o n it s misint er pr et at io n o f Kazub owski and stating that "bi

ndi ng preceden

t" provided that the "ori gin al and speci

al status o f the contem

pt pr oc eed inges t ab lishe s t ha t a c o nt emp t pe t it io n d o es no t r ais e a cla im wit hin t he mea ning o f Ru le 304(a )." (Em phasi s om i tted.) Gutman , 3 76 Ill. App . 3 d a t 76 2- 63 . A clo se r r ea ding o f Kazub owskiNo. 2-- 06--1060

-8-

al lowsno basis to o verrul e Alyas sir and Co lan ge lo . A revi ewof earl ie rcas es fur t her sup po rt s t he
an alys is in Alyas sir and Co lan ge lo that onl y contem pt orders w

here sa nc tions hav e b een

i m posed are fi nal and revi ewabl e. See Va len cia v. Va len cia , 71 Ill . 2d 220, 228 (1 978 ) ( not only dist inguishing pend ingand d enied c ont empt pet itio ns b ut al so contempt orders where no puni shm ent has b een im posed: "G en er ally, it is held t hat wher e no punishment has be en impos ed a n or der adjud icat ing o ne to b e i ncon te mpt is no t final and is not reviewable") ; Bl ake v. Bl ake , 80 Ill . 523, 524-25 (1875) (w her e t he t rial co ur t impose d fines and impriso nment o n t he defen dant, supreme c ourt stated t hat such an or der was a final and app ealable decr ee) ; Flaningam v. Flaning am , 331 Il l. A pp. 418, 420 (1947) (where the trial

court me rely stated in an

order t hat the defe

ndan t was i n c onte m pt f orfaili ng to com pl y wi th h i s d i vor cede cre e b

ut di d n ot i m pos e a n y sa n cti on , a pp el l ate court hel d that t he order
was no t r ev iew ab le and quoted Le ste r v . B er kowi tz , 125 Il l . 307, 30 8 (188 8): " 'Had th e court attempted to enf

orce obedien

ce to its order by

the im positi on of a f

in e i n a sum of m oney , with an order for an exe cut ion, or by a definite t er m of impriso nment, as fo r c ont empt of c ou rt , t he judg ment of t he co ur t impo sing su ch fine o rimpr iso nme nt wo uld be fina l, and fr om which a n app eal might be t ak en , o r t o wh ich a w r it of er ro r wo uld lie' "); cf. Hil l v . Thomas B. Je f

f ery Co. , 292 Ill . 490, 493 (1920) (stating that a "j udgme nt eithe r that he was gu ilt y of

contempt or t hat he was n ot is a fi nal j udgm en t," bu t in contex t of f acts th at i nv olv ed th e i m posi tion of i m pri sonm en t). Gu tm an wa s inc o rr ec t no t o nly bec au se o f its misint er pr et at io n o f Kazub owski an d i ts pr o ge ny, b ut al so b ec au se i ts holdi ng renders

Rul e 304(b)(5) superfl

uous. Rule 304(b) was

am ended post- Kazub owski

to al low an

excepti on to Rul e 304 (a ) fo r a n ord er "find ing a p er so n o ren t it y in
con tem pt of courtwhi ch

i m poses a m onetary or other pena

l ty." 210 Il

l . 2d R. 3 04(b )(5). Gutman dis mi ssed the signifi

cance of the en ac tmen

t of Ru l e 3 04 (b )(5 ) by

sta ti n g th at i t wa s a dd ed onl y toNo. 2-- 06--1060

-9-

refl ect current practice and was not in tended to " 'eli

mi nate or restr ict appeals f

rom j ud g men

ts or ordershereto fore appealabl e.' " Gutman , 37 6 I ll. Ap p. 3 d at 764, quo ting 155 Il l. 2d R. 304, Comm ittee Com m en ts, at l xx xi v. Gutman

continue d

by stating that al

thoughbot h Kazub owski

and Ru le 304(b)(5) state t hat the i mposi tion of a ci vi l c ontemptsanction is

not subj ect to Rul e 304(a), "[a]
ne ces sary co r o llar y o f t ha t st at us [ o f t he pr o ce ed ing s a s o r igin al a nd sp ec ial] is that t he deni

al o f a civ il contempt p etition li

kewise is not subject t o Rule 304(a). " (Em phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Gutman , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 764. T his logic defi

es the princi

pl e o f in cl usi o unius

est excl usi o alterius , w hich means t hat t he
men ti on of on e thi ng i m pli es the ex

cl usi on of another. W i

nn v. Mi tsu bi sh i Motor Manu fact ur ing , 308 I ll. App. 3d 1 054 , 1 060 (1 999 ). Unde r t his maxim of c ons t ru ct ion, t he sup re me co ur t wo uld no t have
us ed such na rrow l an gu ag e h ad i t i n ten de d to exem

pt all ci vi l c ontempt petitions , pendi ng, deni ed,
orotherwi

se, f rom R ul e 304 (a). Gutman

de pa rt s fr om the pl ain langua ge o f Rule 30 4( b)( 5) by
re ading int o it ex ce pt io ns t o Ru le 3 04 ( a) t ha t t he su pr eme co ur t did no t expr ess bu t co uld have do ne so very si mpl y. See 210 Ill . 2d R. 30 4(b )(3 ) (c l ea rl y ex pr es si n g th at a judg ment o r o rd er "gr ant ing
ordeny in g" a secti on 2--1401 petition m ay be appeal ed wi thout a Ru le 304 (a ) finding) . I ndee d, t he Comm ittee Co mment s s t at e t ha t Ru le 304 (b) was added wi th the in tention of em

bodyi ng ex is ting l aw. But agai n, Gutman

miscons t ru ed t he Com

m i ttee Com men ts to support i

ts posi tion
. The Comm

ittee Com men ts sta te th at i t i s " notthe

i nte nti on of the com m i tteeto el i m i na te or res tri ct a

ppe als f rom j udgm en ts or o rders heretofore

appe alab l e." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) 155 Ill . 2d R. 304, Commi tt ee Comm ents, at lxx

xi v. "Heretofore" mea

ns "up to this ti

me " (Web ster's Thi

rd New International Dicti onary

10 59 ( 19 86 ) ) , mea ning t ha t a ju dg men t o ro r de rt ha t wa s a pp ea labl e prior t o t he
enac t ment of

Ru l e 3 04 (b ) w as

n ot i n ten de d to be aff

ected, and no case or ru le pr ior t o t he ena ct mentNo. 2-- 06--1060

-10-

of Rul e 304(b) hel

d that a contempt order t hat did n ot im pose sancti ons of f

in es or im prisonm ent was ap pe ala ble wit ho ut a R ule 304(a) fi ndi ng. Actual

ly , we ha ve f oun d n o ca se or rul e p rior to Gutman that has s o hel

d. Furth er, the Comm

ittee Comm

ents i ndicate that subsection (b )(5) was added i n 1993 to refl

ect "cu rr ent pra

cti ce ," c i ti ng to People ex . rel

Sc o t t v. Silv er st ein , 87 Ill . 2d 167 (1981). 155 Ill . 2d R. 304, Com m i ttee Com men ts, at l xx xv . In Silv er st ein , t he de fen da nt ap pe ale d a n o r de rr eq uir ing him to testi f y at a di scovery

depos i tion
. Silv er st ein , 87 I ll. 2 d a t 16 9- 70
. T he su pr eme co ur t 's ho lding
was co nsist ent wit h Rule 3 04( b)( 5) and t he ca se law t hat we ha ve disc uss ed in gr eat dep t h her e. The
su pr eme co ur t dis misse d t he a pp ea l and held t hat t he " impo sit io n o f a sa nc ti on for contempt i s f

in al and app ealable be cau se, altho ugh o ccu rr ing wit hin the c ont ext of a not her pr oc eed ingand t hus ha ving t he appe aran

ce of be i ng i nterl ocutory , i

t is an origi na l spe cial procee di ng, c oll ateral t o a nd indepe ndent of, the case in whi ch the contempt ar ises." Silv er st ein , 87 Il l . 2d at 17 2. More pe r su as ive ly, t he su pr eme co ur t st at ed t hat t he co ur t wo uld have jurisd ictio n only aft er t he de fendant refuse d t o o bey the disco ver y or der "and a final or der imposing s anct ions a nd t er minating contempt proceedin gs was entered against him." Silv er st ein , 87 Ill . 2d at 173. Ho wever, atthat point i n tim e, t he co ur t did no t have a judg ment of c ont empt "including a fine or impriso nment, " which w ou ld have be en a f i na l and app eal

ab l e j udgm

en t. Silv er st ein , 87 Ill . 2d at 174. Gutman f ra med i ts positi on as though i

t was merel

y i nterpreting the ab il

ity to appeal contempt ordersas that ab i l i

ty h as a l way s b een i nterpreted. In

real i ty, Gutman , in

a few short pages, departed f rom a century or more of le gal

precedent and opened the f loodgates to pie ce me al

appeal s, whi

ch Ru le 3 04 in tended to avoid
. A pp ar en tl y , the l aw di d n ot f i t Gutman's inte rp re t at ion o f Rule 30 4's appl i ca b i l i ty to orders of contempt, so it chan ged the l aw wi

thout acknowl edgi

ng a depa rture f romNo. 2-- 06--1060

-11-

su pr eme courtprecedent. However, the supreme court hashad n

ume rous oppo rtuniti es to embody Gutman's in

terp retat ion that all

contempt o rders, regar

dl ess of outcom

e, are exce pt ed fr om Ru le 304 's app licatio n. Instead, the suprem e court chose t o amen

d Rul e 304( b) wi

th th e n arr ow l an gua geof sub section

5, an d tha t is a f act we f i nd s i gni f i can t. For the foregoin

g reasons, we overrul e Gutman an d r ev er t t o t he so un d p r ec ed en t , an d R ule 304(b)(5), t hat hold s t hat only co nt empt or der s re sult ing in the imposit ion o f fi nes o r impriso nment areappe al ab l e wi th out a Ru l e 3 04 (a) f i n di n g. A cc ordi n gl y , w e l ack j uri sd i cti on to addr es s th

e m eri ts of re spo ndent 's ap pea l becau se t he noti ceof appe al wa s f i l ed wh i l e p eti ti on er ' s p eti

ti on f or a ru l e to sh owcause wa s s ti l l

pen di ng. Pursuan

t to Rule 303(a )(2) (Of f i cial Reports A

dva nc e Sheet No. 8 (April 11, 2007), R. 303(a)(2), eff . May 1, 2007 ), whi ch

appl i es re troacti ve l y here ( In re Marri age of Duggan , 37 6 I ll. Ap

p. 3d 72 5, 734 ( 2007) ), we di sm is s respondent's

appeal beca use on t he pr ese nt record, respondent 's notice of appeal i s p remature. We presum e that respondent can tim el y f il e a no t ice o f ap pe al u po n t he r es o lut io n o f t he pe nd ing pe t it io n fo ra r ule to show cause an d any ot her pen di ng c l ai m s i n th i s m atter. Ho weve r, if pending c laims have been r eso lved and the tim e to fil e a new no t ice o f ap pe al h as ex pir ed , Ru le 303 (a )( 2) allows re spo ndent t o e st ablish the ef f ec ti ve ne ss of the prese nt notice of a ppea l . In the la tt er even t, respo nden

t may fi le a pe ti ti on f or re h ea ri n g a n d to supplem ent the reco rd, t hereby

establi shi ng our jurisdiction to address t he m erits. Appeal dis mi ssed. McL AR EN an d ZEN OFF , JJ., c oncu

r.