Court Opinion

ID: 9965917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:03:51.123381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:52.449251
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 230618-U
                                         No. 1-23-0618
                                    Order filed May 3, 2024
                                                                                     Sixth Division

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
 limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                            IN THE
                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                       FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 In re MARRIAGE OF:                                           )   Appeal from the
                                                              )   Circuit Court of
 YARYNA CHOLACH,                                              )   Cook County.
                                                              )
        Petitioner-Appellee,                                  )   No. 19 D 230474
                                                              )
     and                                                      )   Honorable
                                                              )   Jeanne Marie Reynolds,
 NAZAR CHOLACH,                                               )   Judge, Presiding.
                                                              )
        Respondent-Appellant.                                 )

        PRESIDING JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court.
        Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment.

                                           ORDER

¶1     Held: Trial court’s imposition of sanctions against respondent pursuant to Supreme Court
             Rule 219 (eff. July 1, 2022) for his repeated failure to comply with discovery or
             several court orders in the parties’ prolonged divorce proceedings was not an abuse
             of discretion.

¶2     Petitioner Yaryna Cholach filed an action for dissolution of marriage against respondent

Nazar Cholach on October 21, 2019. After a default judgment was entered against respondent on
No. 1-23-0618

February 22, 2023, respondent filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the default dissolution of

marriage on March 16, 2023, which the circuit court denied on March 20, 2023. Respondent

appeals, contending that the default judgment entered against him constitutes a violation of his

constitutional due process rights. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶3      Although petitioner has not filed a brief on appeal, we will consider the appeal pursuant to

the principles set forth in First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d

128, 131-33 (1976).

¶4                                       BACKGROUND

¶5      This case involves very lengthy and contemptuous dissolution of marriage proceedings

between the parties. This case has previously been before this Court on two prior interlocutory

appeals filed by respondent in November and December 2022, respectively.

¶6      The record reveals that this case began when petitioner filed a petition for an emergency

order of protection (EOP) for herself and her children against respondent on September 20, 2019,

which was granted. Respondent was served with a copy of the EOP on September 27, 2019, and

notified of the hearing set for October 7, 2019. On October 7, 2019, the circuit court extended the

EOP until October 23, 2019, and set a hearing on the plenary order of protection for October 23,

2019.

¶7      On October 21, 2019, petitioner filed the dissolution of marriage petition that is the subject

of this appeal. In the petition, petitioner alleged that she was employed as a cleaning lady and

respondent was employed as a truck driver. The parties were married in Ukraine on June 18, 2005,

and two children were born during the marriage, namely Maryana born January 24, 2006, and

Zlata born June 6, 2016. The following day, petitioner filed an ex parte emergency petition for a

                                                -2-
No. 1-23-0618

restraining order (TRO) and thereafter a preliminary injunction against respondent based on

petitioner’s belief that respondent would attempt to convey, conceal, hide, dissipate, transfer,

spend, and otherwise dispose of or encumber substantial marital assets of the parties.

¶8     On October 23, 2019, the EOP was terminated due to an agreed restraining order entered

by the parties. Pursuant to the agreed order, the parties agreed that: (1) respondent would provide

an accounting regarding the matters raised in the ex parte TRO within 30 days; (2) the ex parte

TRO petition was continued to the next court date; (3) prior to the next court date, the parties

would exchange financial affidavits with supporting documentation; (4) respondent would

continue paying the mortgage and assessments for the marital residence, electricity and internet

service; (5) respondent would also pay half of daycare expenses, then totaling $230 per week

directly to the service provider on production of the invoice; (6) a mutual restraining order was

entered against both parties restraining them from physically abusing, harassing, intimidating,

striking or interfering with the personal liberty of the other party or the minor children, nor remove

the minor children without the consent of the other party; (7) respondent would temporarily reside

outside of the marital home except that he would have the right to spend up to 48 consecutive

weekend hours for visitation with the minor children and petitioner would spend that time outside

of the marital home, unless petitioner had advance plans for the children, notified respondent and

then have the children available for visitation with respondent for at least one day during that

period; (8) respondent would notify petitioner eight to twenty-four hours in advance by text as to

what time he would be at the marital home for 48 hours, with the 48 hours based on respondent’s

schedule and was expected to vary from Friday evening to Monday morning with petitioner

confirming receipt of respondent’s message by text; (9) if respondent would stay through Monday,

                                                -3-
No. 1-23-0618

he would notify petitioner of his departure time, and if not leaving before 7 a.m. on Monday,

respondent was to take the youngest child to daycare; if he left on Sunday, that he would leave no

later than 10 p.m.; and (10) a status hearing was set for December 6, 2019.

¶9     Respondent filed his answer to the petition for dissolution of marriage on November 12,

2019. From that point forward, the record indicates that respondent engaged in a pattern of

noncompliance with discovery requests and failure to comply with court orders related to

discovery and other matters, including payment of the Guardian ad litem (GAL) fees.

¶ 10   The initial exchange of written discovery was set for March 6, 2020, as well as a draft

allocation of parenting time agreement or the court would refer the matter to mediation. The case

was also continued several times during the COVID-19 pandemic. When court reconvened in the

fall of 2020, several status dates were set for written discovery and settlement through the end of

the year, with the completion of discovery set for January 13, 2021, and entry of an allocation

judgment. A pretrial conference was also scheduled and held on February 19, 2021.

¶ 11   At the pretrial conference, the circuit court entered an order for the parties to update and

exchange financial affidavits within 21 days; provide any outstanding discovery documents and to

timely supplement their discovery documents including any outstanding personal and business

bank statements for 2019, 2020 and 2021. The matter was set for discovery compliance on March

31, 2021, via Zoom teleconference, and for another pretrial conference, which was subsequently

continued to May 20, 2021.

¶ 12   On May 20, 2021, at the pretrial conference, the circuit court entered an order regarding

respondent’s failure to complete his discovery production or update his financial affidavit in

violation of the February 19 and March 31, 2021, court orders. The order also: granted petitioner

                                               -4-
No. 1-23-0618

leave to file a petition for attorney fees and a motion to compel for presentation on June 7, 2021;

allowed respondent 14 days to reply to the motion; stated that the discovery orders of February 19

and March 31, 2021, remained in force and effect; and set a status for discovery compliance on

June 7, 2021. Subsequently, on May 28, 2021, respondent’s counsel filed a motion for leave to

withdraw.

¶ 13   Petitioner filed a motion to compel respondent’s responses to discovery and for sanctions

against respondent for his failure to respond to discovery requests on June 2, 2021. The next day,

petitioner filed an emergency motion to bar respondent’s unilateral decision to travel to Ukraine

with the minor children and for return of the minor children’s passports. Petitioner also filed an

emergency petition for a TRO and a subsequent preliminary injunction similar to the earlier one

she filed regarding certain bank accounts and other marital assets in respondent’s possession and

control.

¶ 14   Also on June 3, 2021, respondent filed a financial affidavit which indicated that he was

self-employed, received weekly paychecks and that his gross income as of November 1, 2019, was

$79,226. The affidavit also indicated that his gross income for 2020 was $217,619, and he owed

income taxes. Respondent reported net monthly income of -$2689, and no assets.

¶ 15   On June 7, 2021, the circuit court entered an order granting respondent’s previous counsel’s

motion to withdraw and granted Attorney Kozlov leave to appear on respondent’s behalf instanter;

respondent was ordered to tender the children’s passports to Attorney Kozlov when he returned

from New York by Friday, June 11, 2021, and further that Attorney Kozlov would hold the

children’s passports until further order of court; respondent was granted 14 days to respond to

petitioner’s petition for a TRO, petitioner’s motion to bar travel, and petitioner’s motion to compel

                                                -5-
No. 1-23-0618

discovery. Petitioner’s outstanding motions were set for hearing on June 30, 2021. Respondent’s

responses to petitioner’s outstanding motions were filed on June 21 and June 22, 2021.

¶ 16   On June 30, 2021, the circuit court entered an order granting petitioner’s motion to compel,

requiring respondent to produce the following discovery documents by July 2, 2021, at 11 a.m. as

follows: (1) bank statements for his business bank account from February 2021 through June 2021;

(2) personal bank account statement from March 2020 through June 2021; and (3) Chase credit

card statements for the prior two years. Respondent’s failure to produce the discovery documents

by July 2, 2021, at 11 a.m. would result in him being barred from leaving the country or any travel

until he produced the requested records for discovery. Petitioner’s petition for a TRO was

voluntarily withdrawn without prejudice; petitioner’s emergency motion to bar travel was resolved

in that the parties agreed to allow the children to travel with respondent to Ukraine and that an

agreed upon consent and authorization for travel would be completed by the parties’ respective

counsel prior to July 2, 2021. Petitioner’s request for sanctions and attorney fees was entered and

continued to trial and the matter was set for status on respondent’s compliance on July 2, 2021.

¶ 17   On July 2, 2021, petitioner’s counsel informed the court that respondent complied with the

outstanding discovery documents identified in the June 30, 2021, order and a signed consent for

travel was forwarded to respondent. The circuit court ordered that respondent’s counsel was

allowed to release the children’s passports to respondent for purposes of travel to Ukraine; upon

respondent’s return, the passports were to be given to petitioner within three days of his return to

the United States; and a status hearing on settlement was scheduled for August 11, 2021. On that

date, the case was set for pretrial on October 19, 2021, with pretrial memorandums due seven days

prior. On October 19, 2021, both parties were ordered to update their discovery responses within

                                               -6-
No. 1-23-0618

28 days; discovery depositions were to be completed within 60 days; both parties were ordered to

disclose their 213(f)(2) and (f)(3) witnesses regarding real estate property and business evaluations

within 75 days; Heidi Zells was appointed as GAL for the children; and the next status date was

set for January 5, 2022. The January 2022 date was stricken in an agreed order and rescheduled

for status on discovery and the GAL’s investigation on February 18, 2022. The parties entered a

second agreed order on January 27, 2022, extending the discovery deadline to March 1, 2022, with

discovery depositions and disclosure of expert witnesses extended to March 15, 2022. These dates

were subsequently extended to April 11 and April 25, 2022, respectively. The matter was reset for

status hearing on March 29, 2022, and then continued to May 9, 2022.

¶ 18   On March 16, 2022, petitioner issued a subpoena to Chase Bank for respondent’s personal

and business bank statements on or before April 7, 2022. Petitioner also issued a subpoena to

respondent’s company, Nazar Inc., for discovery documents including bank statements,

equipment, corporate records, vehicle leases, payments to shareholders, and leases or contracts due

on or before April 14, 2022. Additionally, petitioner issued a subpoena to RFS Group, Inc. for

discovery documents including evidence of payments to respondent and/or Nazar Inc., tax

statements, gas receipts, driver logs and other records, listing of and all documents showing

trucking trips made by respondent or any other driver employed by Nazar Inc., due on or before

April 14, 2022.

¶ 19   On March 28, 2022, respondent filed a verified petition for temporary relief, requesting

that petitioner be ordered to allow an appraisal of the marital residence and order sale of the marital

residence. Respondent alleged that he contributed the majority of the funds to the purchase of the

marital residence as the down payment was $40,000 and he contributed $30,000 of that amount;

                                                 -7-
No. 1-23-0618

and that he made substantial improvements to the residence which dramatically increased the value

of the property. He also alleged that he made a substantial number of mortgage payments for the

marital residence. Respondent further alleged that the marital residence lost value due to

petitioner’s actions and that he feared that respondent would take action to remove his name from

the deed and add a nonrelated third party. He further contended that he needed the requested

temporary relief to continue with the litigation, defend his rights, and support himself and the

children.

¶ 20   The record indicates that on April 13, 2022, petitioner filed a notice of in-person oral

discovery deposition of respondent on April 21, 2022, which also requested that respondent

produce certain financial documents as identified in the notice. On April 14, 2022, petitioner filed

an emergency motion to extend the oral discovery deposition deadline and expert witness

disclosure deadline for 45 days from April 25, 2022, because respondent did not update his

discovery as agreed, documentation was not received pursuant to subpoena from respondent’s

business or RPS Group. The circuit court granted petitioner’s emergency motion on April 15, 2022,

over respondent counsel’s objection, stated that future discovery deadlines would be addressed at

the May 9, 2022, status date and both parties were to tender their proposed allocation agreements

by that date.

¶ 21   Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw on April 19, 2022, and heard on May 6,

2022, at which time the circuit court ordered respondent to contact the GAL by or before May 10,

2022, and schedule an appointment to speak with her regarding the case and his claims; the parties

were again ordered to exchange proposed allocation judgments on or before May 10, 2022; the

May 9, 2022, court date was stricken; and petitioner’s counsel’s motion to withdraw was continued

                                               -8-
No. 1-23-0618

to the next court date, which was scheduled for May 20, 2022. Respondent filed his proposed

allocation statement on May 10, 2022, and petitioner’s was filed on May 12, 2022. On the same

date, respondent filed a notice of intent to claim dissipation of marital assets. In support of his

claim, respondent contended that: (1) in November 2018, petitioner withdrew $15,000 from the

parties’ bank account without notice to respondent and he believed that she did not use the funds

for marital purposes, and (2) in August 2019, petitioner traded the parties’ 2014 Jeep vehicle for a

2019 Toyota without respondent’s knowledge. Respondent claimed that he was entitled to a credit

against petitioner for such dissipations.

¶ 22   Petitioner secured new counsel on May 16, 2022, who substituted her appearance and

requested that petitioner’s old counsel withdraw from the case. On May 20, 2022, the circuit court

granted petitioner’s new counsel leave to file her appearance; granted petitioner’s old counsel leave

to withdraw and ordered him to surrender his file to the new counsel by May 25, 2022; petitioner

was granted 28 days to respond to respondent’s claim for dissipation of marital assets; petitioner

was granted 45 days to submit her expert witness disclosures; and the matter was set for case

management and trial on allocation issues on July 23, 2022, later changed to July 20, 2022.

¶ 23    Petitioner’s attorney filed several motions to withdraw during the remainder of the

proceedings based on petitioner’s inability to pay as well as the excessive fees incurred due to

respondent’s failure to comply with discovery, the GAL or court orders and due to respondent’s

repeated filing of random motions and petitions. On June 17, 2022, petitioner filed her response to

respondent’s claim for dissipation of marital assets, arguing that respondent’s claims were

conclusory, failed to state any proper specific facts, were baseless and must be stricken. Petitioner

further stated that the marriage was not irretrievably broken until she filed for dissolution of

                                                -9-
No. 1-23-0618

marriage in October 2019, and therefore the events alleged by respondent could not be dissipation

of assets. Petitioner requested that respondent’s dissipation claim be dismissed and that she be

awarded attorney fees and costs incurred in defending against the claim. Petitioner filed a similar

response to respondent’s petition for temporary relief on the same day. On June 21, 2022,

petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to compel respondent’s counsel to disclose the name and contact

information for the court reporter who transcribed petitioner’s discovery deposition, as well as to

comply with other discovery requests because counsel’s continued willful failure to comply with

requests for records amounted to malicious obstruction and delay of the proceedings. On July 7,

2022, petitioner’s counsel sent a notice of subpoena to respondent’s counsel requesting records for

companies who were believed to have business contracts and financial records of transactions with

respondent. The following day, respondent sent copies of his updated financial affidavit as well as

his personal and business 2021 income tax returns.

¶ 24   On July 20, 2022, the circuit court entered an order setting a trial on the allocation of

parenting time for the children for September 19, 2022. Both parties were also ordered to tender

or update their expert witnesses for the allocation trial within 14 days of the order; the GAL was

granted an additional retainer of $4000 with one-third to be paid by petitioner and two-thirds paid

by respondent; closure of discovery for the allocation trial was set for August 22, 2022, without

prejudice to the GAL inquiring or seeing the children after that date; the GAL’s written report was

due by August 29, 2022, and both counsels were to exchange exhibits and written stipulations by

August 22, 2022. Subsequently, the circuit court issued an order on August 15, 2022, which

ordered respondent to pay his share of the court-ordered retainer for the GAL ($2666.66) on that

                                              - 10 -
No. 1-23-0618

day or he would be barred from testifying at the allocation trial on September 19, 2022, with a

status hearing set for August 25, 2022.

¶ 25   On August 24, 2022, petitioner filed a petition for specific contribution to her attorney fees

and costs due to respondent’s failure to pay his share of the GAL fees, which were still unpaid as

of the date of the petition. Petitioner requested that respondent be barred from testifying at the

allocation trial as a sanction. At the status hearing the following day, the circuit court entered an

order that barred respondent from testifying at the upcoming allocation trial due to respondent’s

willful refusal to comply with three prior court orders on two separate dates to pay his share of the

GAL’s fees. The court noted that respondent’s counsel provided no explanation for respondent’s

refusal to pay except to challenge the court’s authority to act without the GAL filing a formal

written petition for rule. The circuit court noted that it had jurisdiction over the parties and the

minor children and found respondent’s behavior to be “contemptuous without any justification.”

Accordingly, respondent was barred from testifying at the September 19, 2022, allocation trial.

Additionally, petitioner was granted leave to file a motion for default against respondent because

of his “contumacious” conduct; the GAL was granted an extension to file her written report by

September 5, 2022, and respondent was given 21 days to respond to the fee petition filed by

petitioner’s counsel which was set for hearing on September 19, 2022.

¶ 26   The GAL’s written report was filed on September 6, 2022. Her report indicated that

respondent initially sought only a majority of parenting time with Maryana because he did not

agree with petitioner’s church and priest, he also wanted joint and decision-making capabilities

regarding the children, but was unwilling to discuss the case or settlement. In July 2022, Maryana

expressed to the GAL that respondent wanted her to choose sides and his counsel indicated that

                                               - 11 -
No. 1-23-0618

the marital home would need to be sold in order to address the parenting schedule. Then on August

26, 2022, respondent’s counsel argued that the GAL did not have enough information to write her

report. Respondent’s counsel reiterated that the marital home needed to be sold and the concern

that petitioner would go back to the same priest. Respondent’s counsel expressed to the GAL that

once the marital home is sold, the parties could have a flexible visitation schedule; respondent

would put a down payment on a new place for petitioner near the children’s schools and he would

also get a property nearby. The GAL was unclear why the sale of the home would affect parenting

time. Respondent also initially indicated that he wanted to change his visitation to every other

weekend with an additional overnight during the week; however, on September 2, 2022,

respondent stated that he was then seeking visitation from Friday at 6 p.m. until Sunday at noon

and no overnight weekday visitation because of his work schedule.

¶ 27   The GAL also noted that petitioner’s position also changed throughout the case; originally

she wanted respondent to have additional time with the children and she wanted some weekend

time. Petitioner then changed her mind and submitted a proposal seeking one week with the

children and then one week with respondent, with joint decisions between the parties. Petitioner

subsequently changed again, indicating that she should have exclusive possession of the marital

home with respondent having visitation every other weekend from Friday at 5 p.m. through Sunday

at 6 p.m. along with two dinner visits on weeks when he did not have weekend visitation and one

dinner visit when he did have weekend visitation. Petitioner also proposed that she have sole

decision-making in all major areas.

¶ 28   The GAL reviewed documents in the case including all of the circuit court’s orders; all

pleadings filed by the parties; proposed parenting time allocations from both parties and emails

                                             - 12 -
No. 1-23-0618

sent from the parties; and documents tendered by the parties and their respective counsels’. The

GAL also interviewed both parties.

¶ 29    She met with petitioner several times, who detailed the relationship between the parties,

and described respondent’s physical violence which led to an order of protection in 2019.

Petitioner stated that she was the primary decision maker for the children because respondent

would not communicate with her about the children or any extracurricular activities for them.

Petitioner expressed concern that respondent did not always give adequate notice of when he

would be arriving for visitation so that she could plan where to go as she had to leave the home

when he was there. Petitioner stated that respondent was upset about her church and the priest,

whom respondent accused of having a relationship with and also that the priest molested a child.

The GAL was provided with documents indicating that the case against the priest was dismissed

in 2015. However, petitioner stated that she had left that church but respondent still fought.

Respondent was a long distance truck driver and was not home during the week, only on weekends,

though petitioner indicated that she was aware that respondent was sometimes home during the

week but did not see the children. Petitioner wanted some weekend time with the children.

Additionally, petitioner indicated that she thought respondent should spend more time with the

children as he did not always complete his full parenting time with them. However, she was very

concerned that he blamed Maryana for telling the GAL that he drank in the children’s presence

and that he had a girlfriend, and further that he told Maryana that she had to choose which parent

to live with.

¶ 30    The GAL met with respondent on December 3, 2021, via Zoom through an interpreter.

Respondent stated that all of the problems in their marriage stem from a lack of trust and because

                                              - 13 -
No. 1-23-0618

of petitioner’s church. He believed that petitioner and the priest had an intimate relationship based

on text messages that he saw, but he had no proof of them. Respondent also stated that petitioner

withdrew money from the marital account, that under the current visitation schedule he could come

“anytime from Friday to Sunday,” but he usually arrived around 6 p.m. on Friday and left early on

Sunday. When the GAL asked him why he wanted more time if did not currently exercise the time

he was given, respondent stated that he had to work to pay bills, but he could adjust his schedule

to spend more time with the children. Respondent admitted that he was not involved with the

children’s school, education, and doctors as there was an English language barrier and because he

had to work. When the GAL asked him why he only wanted to have Maryana and not Zlata,

respondent stated that he felt that Zlata needed more of a maternal role in her life and also that,

because Maryana was older, the priest’s intentions toward her could be stronger. Respondent was

also concerned that because the priest had an influence over petitioner, he was worried that the

priest could have an influence over Maryana as well. Respondent then stated that he wanted both

children with him the majority of the time and petitioner could see them whenever she wanted, but

then stated that petitioner was a danger to the children as she was violent and abusive. However,

respondent did not further elaborate on the claim of violence by petitioner. Respondent also stated

that he and petitioner did not communicate, and if there was an issue with the children, they called

or texted. The GAL interviewed respondent again on May 10, 2022, at which time respondent

indicated that nothing had changed. Respondent was aware that the priest no longer saw the

children anymore but still stated that the priest was the reason his family fell apart and he still

wanted the children with him. Respondent stated that petitioner was unstable and he worried that

her actions in the future would not be in the best interests of the children, though he did not

elaborate on that statement. Respondent again stated that he could change his work schedule to

                                               - 14 -
No. 1-23-0618

have the children, and also that he still only wanted Maryana. Respondent further indicated that he

was in the process of purchasing a condo in the same condo association and that petitioner could

buy one there and see the children whenever she wanted. The GAL’s third interview with

respondent was on September 2, 2022, at his request. Respondent again stated that the parties were

in this situation because of the priest and even though the priest was no longer involved with the

family, respondent was concerned that petitioner could take the children back there in the future.

As a result, respondent wanted sole decision-making authority related to the children. Respondent

also stated that he was willing to give petitioner money to buy a new property to be placed in trust

and given to the children when they turned 18. Respondent wanted petitioner to have the children

all week and he would have them on the weekend when he came home. He stated that he could

commit to every other weekend from Friday at 6 p.m. until Sunday at noon; respondent was not

seeking weekday time because of his work schedule, but if his schedule changed, he would want

that. However, respondent stated that until they resolved the housing situation, he could not

commit to any changes in visitation.

¶ 31   The GAL first interviewed the children on May 17, 2022, via Zoom, after it became clear

that the parties would not reach a settlement regarding allocation of parenting time. Maryana stated

that she was 16 years old and in the 10th grade. She stated that they lived in the marital home, a

three-bedroom condo and she had her own room. Maryana stated that their mom was there during

the week and their father was usually there on the weekend. She liked that arrangement and further

that she wanted to see both parents equally and as much as possible. Maryana detailed the activities

that she did with both parents. Maryana confirmed that her parents did not communicate and was

worried that her father might move back to Ukraine if she does not see him more because he told

                                               - 15 -
No. 1-23-0618

her that a few times. Maryana also stated that one issue between her parents was the church they

attended with her mom and that her dad did not like the priest. However, Maryana told the GAL

that he was just the priest and not her mom’s boyfriend, and further that they no longer see the

priest or attend that church. The GAL also spoke with Zlata, who was five years old and in

kindergarten. Zlata stated that she lived with her parents on different days, she liked being with

both parents, she had one house and did not want two houses. Zlata stated that she saw her father

on the weekends and wanted to see him more. Zlata also stated that her father let her do whatever

she wanted and that was something she liked about being with him. She talked about the things

she did with both parents, and also indicated that she felt safe with both parents.

¶ 32   The GAL again spoke with the children on July 12, 2022. Maryana still reported seeing her

mom during the week and her father on the weekends, either Friday through Sunday or Saturday

until Sunday. She stated that her father drank sometimes and sometimes she drove home for him.

Maryana indicated that it was very rare that he threw up, but that it had happened. Maryana told

the GAL that the idea of seeing her mom on the weekend and her father during the week sounded

weird because it had never happened; ideally she wanted equal time with both parents but it would

be difficult with her schedule. Maryana detailed the activities she did with both parents and

confirmed that they still did not see the priest. The GAL also spoke with Zlata, who was going to

first grade. Zlata reconfirmed the visitation schedule with both parents, stated that her parents were

nice although her father sometimes drank. She again indicated that she felt safe with both parents,

who were still in the house.

¶ 33   On July 21, 2022, the GAL spoke with Maryana, who stated that her mom was not

influencing her. She also stated that her father called her and told her that she had to choose

                                                - 16 -
No. 1-23-0618

between him and her mom. Maryana also stated that her father said court was a lot of money and

if she did not pick him he would leave. He was also angry with her for saying that he drank alcohol;

Maryana was very upset about that interaction.

¶ 34   The GAL last met with the children on September 1, 2022. However, Zlata did not want to

talk, so she just spoke with Maryana. Maryana indicated that her father was no longer making her

pick sides, and she still felt like she wanted equal time with both parents. The GAL told Maryana

that her father was seeking visitation every other weekend, and Maryana stated that she did not

like the idea of going two weeks without seeing him. She asked if there was a day during the off

week when she could see him.

¶ 35   After her interviews with the parties and the children, the GAL considered the best interests

factors and recommended that the children reside in petitioner’s home. She noted that respondent’s

work schedule required him to be out of town during the week; thus, she recommended that

respondent have parenting time with the children every other weekend from Friday at 6 p.m. until

Sunday at 6 p.m., despite his wishes to only have parenting time until Sunday at noon. The GAL

believed, based on respondent’s earlier statements that there was more flexibility to his schedule

than he indicated and that he had the ability to see the children later on Sunday if he wanted to.

The GAL also noted that on his off weeks, respondent had the ability to modify his schedule to

have an overnight visit with the children on Sunday or Thursday. She indicated that the children

wished to see respondent more and that based on several of his statements, she believed respondent

had the ability to make it happen. The GAL found that having both parties consistently part of the

children’s lives would be in their best interests; however, no one could make respondent take more

time if he was unwilling to do so. If that was the case, the GAL recommended that respondent’s

                                               - 17 -
No. 1-23-0618

parenting time be every other weekend from Friday at 6 p.m. until Sunday at noon, because it was

important for both parents to have weekend time with the children. She also indicated that it was

not in the children’s best interest for respondent to continue notifying petitioner eight hours in

advance of his coming and going because the children needed stability and the ability to make

plans. She further recommended that the nesting schedule should not continue; petitioner should

remain in the marital home, which should be part of the property settlement later, and if she was

awarded the marital home, the GAL indicated that petitioner should pay the mortgage and utilities.

Respondent should be required to pay child support, maintenance, and extracurriculars; and while

it was unclear if he had purchased the property at 2300 Windsor Mall Drive, respondent indicated

that he had the ability to purchase a residence as he offered to purchase it for petitioner. The GAL

found that it made no sense for petitioner to move as the marital home was where the children

were used to residing and wanted to live in. As petitioner was the primary caretaker for the children

and had the majority of the parenting time, the GAL found that petitioner should stay in the marital

home.

¶ 36    With respect to decision-making, the GAL concluded that petitioner should make sole

decisions concerning the children as she was the primary caretaker and had always made the

decisions for the children. She noted that respondent admitted that he had not been involved in the

children’s schooling, medical or extracurricular activities though he was upset that petitioner

attended a certain church with a certain priest. Petitioner stopped going to the church and seeing

the priest, so it was no longer an issue although respondent, with no basis, speculated that she

might go back to that church after the divorce. The GAL found that this was respondent’s attempt

to try and control petitioner and argue about issues that were not present. The GAL further found

                                               - 18 -
No. 1-23-0618

that respondent was unwilling to work with petitioner and it was unlikely that they could co-parent

and work together to make decisions for the children. The GAL further indicated that both children

loved their parents and both parents loved the children. However, she noted that respondent’s anger

towards petitioner and the divorce clouded his judgment and he sometimes did not act in the best

interests of the children.

¶ 37    On September 8, 2022, respondent filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the circuit

court’s August 25, 2022, order which barred him from testifying at the allocation trial. Respondent

argued that the court’s order barring him from testifying about the allocation of parental

responsibility was not in the best interests of the children, was an abuse of discretion and a violation

of respondent’s constitutional due process rights. He also argued that petitioner had no standing to

file a petition to enforce the court’s order that he pay the GAL fees; only the GAL could file a

petition to adjudicate. Respondent also maintained that barring his testimony was a very harsh and

disproportionate sanction to the alleged violation and was an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion.

¶ 38    Petitioner followed with a verified petition for rule to show cause on September 12, 2022,

contending that respondent should be held in indirect civil contempt for his willful and

contemptuous failure to comply with the parties’ agreed order of October 29, 2019, regarding the

payment of daycare and extra-curricular expenses or school fees for the children. The petition

stated that, on information and belief, respondent was working and receiving cash payments and

intentionally concealing money received from work. Petitioner alleged that respondent owed

$2454.50 for daycare and camp costs for the children.

¶ 39    On the same day, petitioner filed a motion for default judgment of allocation and for

sanctions against respondent for his failure to pay the GAL fees. Additionally, petitioner also filed

                                                 - 19 -
No. 1-23-0618

a motion to compel respondent to respond to discovery and for sanctions for his failure to comply

with discovery. Specifically, petitioner alleged that respondent failed to produce any discovery

related to his personal or business financial affairs, including bank accounts, nine real estate

properties, six vehicles, businesses, life insurance, compensation from companies his business had

contracted with, credit card statements, as well as other expenditures and expenses. Petitioner

sought to invoke all available sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 (eff. July 1, 2002)

as well as attorney fees and costs.

¶ 40   On September 14, 2022, respondent filed a motion to strike and dismiss petitioner’s petition

for specific contribution to attorney fees based on his failure to pay the GAL fees, restating his

position that the circuit court’s August 25, 2022, order should be vacated as it violated his

constitutional due process rights. Among other things, respondent argued that the petition was

insufficient as it did not itemize the attorney fees. Petitioner responded with an amended petition

for specific contribution to her attorney fees on September 16, 2022, which itemized all attorney

fees related to respondent’s failure to pay the GAL fees.

¶ 41   That same day, petitioner filed a petition seeking contribution to her interim and

prospective attorney fees and costs, noting that although the petition for dissolution was filed on

October 21, 2019, there was no agreement regarding any of the outstanding financial matters raised

in the dissolution petition, and that respondent’s answer shows that there would continue to be

substantial disagreement as to each and every aspect of the divorce. Petitioner also filed a verified

petition for a finding of civil contempt, to set a purge and for sanctions for respondent’s failure to

pay the court-ordered GAL fees.

                                                - 20 -
No. 1-23-0618

¶ 42   On September 19, 2022, the date of the allocation hearing, GAL filed a second invoice of

her fees. The circuit court entered a written order after the allocation hearing and after

consideration of respondent’s motion to vacate the August 25, 2022, order barring him from

testifying at the hearing. The written order indicated that the circuit court first addressed

respondent’s motion to vacate as well as the five pleadings filed by petitioner. The circuit court

ordered as follows: (1) the August 25, 2022, order was vacated to allow respondent to testify at

the allocation hearing and respondent testified; (2) petitioner was found to be the primary parent

of the children and was awarded primary residential allocation in the current marital residence; (3)

the current nesting situation was not working, was not in the best interests of the children,

respondent had the financial ability to find and secure alternate housing and suitable living

arrangements; exclusive possession of the marital residence was awarded to petitioner; respondent

was ordered to vacate the residence by October 4, 2022, and was barred from entering the marital

residence; respondent must exercise his parenting time at his new residence and must notify

petitioner when he secured a new residence and the address; (4) respondent could not take or

remove any personal property of the children and the parties were to agree in writing what property

the respondent could remove from the marital residence; (5) respondent’s parenting time was set

for every other weekend beginning September 30, 2022, from Friday at 6 p.m. through Sunday at

noon, conditioned on respondent providing no less than 24 hours prior written notice to petitioner

that he would be exercising his parenting time; failure to provide such notice results in respondent

forfeiting his alternate weekend parenting time for that weekend; (6) respondent to continue paying

the mortgage, assessments, taxes, utilities and insurance on the marital residence as he had been

paying and all other court orders requiring him to pay those expenses were still in force and effect;

(7) respondent was not to put the children in the middle or punish the children for the court’s

                                               - 21 -
No. 1-23-0618

rulings and findings regardless of whether evidence was presented based on the children’s or a

child’s statements to the GAL or to petitioner in the past, present or future; (8) the court would

provide a written ruling and findings regarding decision making by the parties for the minor

children; (9) the five pleadings filed by petitioner were set for hearing on October 6, 2022, if rules

were issued on the petitions on October 6, 2022, they were returnable instanter that day and the

GAL’s fees would also be addressed that day; (10) respondent was given seven days to respond to

the petitioner’s pleadings; (11) both parties were to provide updated financial disclosures within

seven days of the September 19, 2022, court date; and (12) the case was set for case management

on October 6, 2022.

¶ 43   Respondent in turn filed a motion on September 22, 2022, to strike petitioner’s amended

petition for specific contribution to attorney fees and costs based on his failure to pay the GAL

fees. He made the same arguments as in his previous motion. Petitioner tendered her updated

financial affidavit to respondent on September 26, 2022.

¶ 44   On the same date, respondent tendered an updated financial affidavit to petitioner and filed

several responses and motions. First, he filed a verified response to petitioner’s petition to show

cause. In his verified response, respondent contended that he was obligated to contribute to any

extracurricular activities for the children and further that he was not provided with any invoices

directly from the daycare provider. He also filed an answer to petitioner’s request for contribution

to her attorney fees. Additionally, respondent replied to petitioner’s motion to compel discovery,

in which he contended that the discovery requests were made in 2021. Finally, respondent filed a

motion to strike petitioner’s petition for a finding of indirect civil contempt, in which he admitted

that the circuit court allowed him to testify at the allocation trial on September 19, 2022, but argued

                                                - 22 -
No. 1-23-0618

that the court did not hold any hearing on whether his behavior in not paying the GAL fees was

willful. He also restated his prior argument that the GAL never filed any pleading to claim the fees

or enforcement of the court’s prior order.

¶ 45   On October 4, 2022, respondent filed a verified counter petition for dissolution of marriage.

On the same date, he filed a motion to vacate and reconsider or in the alternate stay the circuit

court’s September 19, 2022, order. In the motion, respondent contended that the circuit court erred

in concluding that he had the financial ability to secure a new residence and requested that the

court reconsider not allowing him to exercise his parenting time at the marital residence.

Additionally, respondent filed a motion to reallocate the GAL’s fees and order petitioner to pay

50% instead of one-third.

¶ 46   The circuit court entered a written order on October 6, 2022, after hearing on the various

pleadings that were filed by both parties in the case. The court ordered as follows: (1) respondent

was granted leave to file his counter petition for dissolution of marriage but it was considered a

response and petitioner did not have to respond to it; (2) respondent withdrew his motion to vacate

and reconsider without prejudice; (3) respondent’s motion to sell the marital residence was

continued for hearing as part of the trial; (4) petitioner was granted until October 28, 2022, to

respond to respondent’s petition to reallocate GAL fees; (5) petitioner was granted until October

28, 2022, to respond to the other outstanding pleadings filed by respondent, but if they were denied

the circuit court would immediately proceed on petitioner’s underlying petitions on November 3,

2022; (6) both parties’ counsels were ordered to appear at a discovery conference on October 22,

2022; if disputes remained after the conference, the court would conduct a hearing on petitioner’s

motion to compel discovery on the same date; (7) petitioner’s remaining pleadings were set as a

                                               - 23 -
No. 1-23-0618

priority on November 3, 2022; (8) if time was available after such hearing, the court’s case

management conference would be concluded the court would hear respondent’s pleadings that

were not stricken or withdrawn; (9) respondent was to overnight discovery documents to the court;

(10) respondent was to email pleadings to petitioner’s counsel that were not received; (11) if a rule

issued against respondent on November 3, 2022, such rule was returnable instanter for the same

date; (12) a case management conference was set for November 3, 2022; (13) GAL fees would be

addressed on November 3, 2022; (14) respondent’s counsel was to provide information regarding

the exact attorney fees paid or owed by respondent by the next court date; and (15) petitioner’s

counsel’s motion to withdraw was voluntarily withdrawn without prejudice.

¶ 47   After an unsuccessful 201K conference, the circuit court held a hearing on petitioner’s

motion to compel discovery and for sanctions against respondent and respondent’s failure to

address the discovery deficiencies. In a written order on October 12, 2022, the circuit court ordered

that respondent was required and compelled to provide written answers to and documentation of

all of the items raised in petitioner’s June 19, 2022, deficiency letter by October 25, 2022,

including: bank statements and cancelled checks from the Chase account for 2018; documentation

of all real estate acquired from the date of the marriage through the present; documentation related

to all vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, cycles, trailers, ATVs or snowmobiles in respondent’s name;

documentation of any safe deposit boxes and their contents; life insurance policies; business

accounts; business and personal credit card statements; Amazon and eBay purchases; lines of

credit; loans, mortgages, and/or rent received; and documentation to support his claims that

petitioner had not contributed to the accumulation of marital property or dissipated any marital

property. Both parties were ordered to obtain current appraisals for the marital home within 30

                                               - 24 -
No. 1-23-0618

days; and the assessment of attorney fees and sanctions against respondent was continued until the

next court date of November 3, 2022.

¶ 48   The circuit court held a hearing on the allocation of parental responsibilities and decision

making and parenting time on September 19, 2022, and issued its written order with findings of

fact after hearing on October 14, 2022. The order indicated that both parties were present and

represented by counsel and the GAL was present. The court heard testimony from the parties and

the GAL. The circuit court found that on October 29. 2019, an agreed order was entered and both

parties agreed to a nesting arrangement where petitioner resided in the marital residence with the

children during the week and respondent resided with the children in the marital residence on the

weekends. The circuit court found that respondent repeatedly failed to cooperate with the GAL by

refusing to make appointments with the GAL despite court orders; requesting a 50/50 parenting

schedule despite the fact that he works out of town during the week; requesting that each parent

have one of their children reside with each parent full-time; failing to present his proposed

parenting plan; and failing to pay his share of the GAL fees without any valid reason. The court

also noted that on multiple occasions it ordered respondent to pay the GAL fees and to cooperate

with the GAL on his parenting plan requests by a certain date or be barred from testifying and in

fact was barred from testifying by court order on August 25, 2022. After the court order was

entered, respondent then contacted the GAL to discuss the parenting issues and the court granted

his motion to vacate the court’s order barring him from testifying and respondent testified at the

hearing.

¶ 49   The circuit court noted that it reviewed all testimony and all evidence submitted at trial

which confirmed that the marital residence is located at 2500 Windsor Mall, Unit 1A in Park Ridge,

                                              - 25 -
No. 1-23-0618

and that petitioner and the children reside there. Respondent was and still is an independent over-

the-road truck driver who works Sunday through Friday out of town. Petitioner testified to the

numerous problems with respondent not communicating with her as to when his parenting time

would begin and end, and that respondent did not consistently exercise his parenting time on

Fridays. Petitioner also stated the respondent would often not begin his parenting time until

Saturday and would end early on Sunday. Those inconsistencies interfered with petitioner’s work

schedule and her need to find childcare coverage for the children during respondent’s parenting

time. Respondent admitted that he often did not respond to petitioner’s communications believing

that he did not have to and that his work schedule was uncertain and dependent on the jobs. Both

parties testified that their current nesting situation was not working nor in each parent or the

children’s best interests. Respondent testified that he wished to remain in the marital home and

could purchase a similar home nearby for petitioner to live in. The GAL testified that respondent

told her that he was in the process of purchasing a unit in the same vicinity. The court agreed that

the nesting situation was not working and entered a separate order on that issue on September 19,

2022. Petitioner proposed a written parenting plan and respondent did not.

¶ 50   The court indicated that it had reviewed the evidence and all of the relevant best interest

factors as follows: (1) Petitioner had been the children’s primary caregiver since birth, made all

major decisions for the children and sought sole decision-making for all major parenting decisions

as respondent was not home during the week; respondent exercised inconsistent parenting time on

the weekends and often did not notify her of when he would begin and end parenting time; failed

to actively supervise the children which resulted in the youngest child drawing all over the walls

in the resident; respondent has been intoxicated during his parenting time where he was unable to

                                               - 26 -
No. 1-23-0618

drive home and was sick in front of the children; and respondent left the marital residence dirty

and a mess at the end of his parenting time; (2) Respondent on the other hand sought joint decision-

making for all major decisions and sole decision-making regarding religion; however, the court

noted that respondent had never participated in any decisions regarding the children; (3) the

parties’ communication was very poor, respondent admitted that he failed to communicate with

petitioner on parenting issues including payment of educational and extracurricular activities,

refused to pay without explanation; respondent stated there was no court order requiring him to

respond to petitioner’s texts and emails, which the court found unreasonable and confirmation that

he lacked the ability to communicate with petitioner or place the children’s best interests above

his own; and the court noted that respondent’s finances were not an issue as he paid cash for a car

for Maryana; (4) the court noted respondent’s requests for sole responsibility for religious

decisions based on his objections during the course of the divorce to a particular priest that had

previously provided marital counseling and his claims regarding child molestation charges which

the court found were not corroborated by any facts outside of respondent’s statements, and further

that petitioner no longer attended that church or communicated with that priest since January 2022;

(5) respondent’s failure to consistently or fully exercise his parenting time; (6) the GAL’s

recommendation that petitioner be the primary caregiver and have sole authority to make

responsibilities for the children as she has always done so and respondent is unavailable to be the

primary caregiver due to his work schedule; (7) both children’s desire to have both parents active

in their lives and to not be in the middle of their parents’ disagreements, as well as respondent’s

discussion of the divorce proceedings and threatening to return to Ukraine without them if they do

not support him; (8) the overwhelming evidence that petitioner had been the primary caregiver for

the children and made all decisions for them as respondent had always been absent during the week

                                               - 27 -
No. 1-23-0618

and not objected to petitioner’s decision; and further that respondent’s position that the children

and petitioner should be uprooted from their home for the one to two days that he is in Illinois was

unreasonable and showed that respondent did not understand the needs of the children for stability

nor was he willing to facilitate a good relationship between the children and petitioner; (9) the

court adopted the GAL’s recommendation that neither parent consume excessive alcohol that

would render the parent unable to care for and transport the children or to discuss the divorce

proceedings with the children; and (10) the court noted petitioner’s previous order of protection

against respondent for abuse.

¶ 51    As a result of its findings, the circuit court ordered that petitioner was granted sole

allocation for the responsibility of all necessary decisions for the children in areas of education,

healthcare, extracurricular activities, and religion; respondent was granted biweekly weekend

parenting time from Friday at 6 p.m. until Sunday at noon, with appropriate and timely

communication regarding the start and end time and dates; adopted petitioner’s parenting plan

provisions for holidays, vacation time and additional time during the week if respondent wanted

to exercise it.

¶ 52    On October 19, 2022, respondent filed a motion to vacate the court’s order of October 14,

2022, or alternately stay both that order and the September 19, 2022, order. Respondent sought to

continue his parenting time at the marital residence or an order requiring petitioner to sell the

marital residence or buy out his 50% interest in the marital residence.

¶ 53    On November 3, 2022, respondent was ordered to pay his past due portion of the GAL fees

by 6 p.m. or a body attachment would be issued for him, and both parties were ordered to pay the

new fees in the same proportion within seven days or a body attachment would issue. The GAL

                                               - 28 -
No. 1-23-0618

was then discharged from her duties for the minor children without prejudice. As part of the court’s

findings, it noted that respondent sent over $300,000 to Ukraine where his brother lived;

respondent testified that he paid cash for a car for Maryana in February 2022; and also had funds

to place a $40,000 deposit on another condo in the area for petitioner. The court also found that

respondent caused the entire proceeding to be prolonged by his conduct and failure to cooperate

which caused substantial legal expenses to be unnecessarily incurred by petitioner.

¶ 54   Thereafter, on November 9, 2022, the circuit court entered a final allocation of parenting

time consistent with the prior order from October 14, 2022 and included Rule 304 (eff. Mar. 8,

2016) language. On the same date, respondent was ordered to pay petitioner’s counsel $27,500,

which included $25,000 in interim attorney fees and $2500 of 508 fees ordered by the court due

to respondent’s contemptuous conduct. Respondent was also ordered to pay petitioner $4909 for

back childcare expenses that he willfully failed to pay and for which he was held in indirect civil

contempt on November 3, 2022. The circuit court subsequently set the case for case management

and a hearing on January 18, 2023, on petitioner’s motion to compel and for sanctions and fees.

¶ 55   Due to respondent’s failure to comply with the court’s orders entered in November 2022,

petitioner filed a petition for indirect civil contempt, setting of purge amounts and for immediate

incarceration on November 21, 2022. Respondent failed to pay petitioner’s attorney fees as

ordered. Among other things, the petition alleged that respondent told petitioner that he would

financially ruin her and force her not to have counsel.

¶ 56   Respondent filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the circuit court’s orders of November

3 and 9, 2022, on November 23, 2022. He argued that the court erred in granting an award to pay

petitioner’s attorney fees because she failed to meet her burden of proof, and that the court erred

                                               - 29 -
No. 1-23-0618

in ordering him to pay other amounts for childcare expenses and other amounts for petitioner’s

attorney fees. Respondent also filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court’s November 9, 2022,

order on November 23, 2022 (case number 22-1776). Meanwhile, on November 28, 2022, the

circuit court scheduled both parties’ petitions for hearing on December 2, 2022. On that date, the

circuit court found that a prima facie case of indirect civil contempt was shown against respondent,

issued a rule to show cause and respondent was ordered to appear in court on December 13, 2022,

or risk a body attachment. Additionally, the court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and

reconsider the circuit court’s November 3 and 9, 2022, orders. Respondent was not present for the

court hearing.

¶ 57   On December 14, 2022, the circuit court entered an order of adjudication of indirect civil

contempt against respondent and he was again ordered to pay the arrearage. Respondent was

ordered committed to the Cook County Jail, but such commitment was stayed until December 16,

2022, to allow respondent time to purge the contempt. In response, respondent filed a second notice

of appeal on December 20, 2022, seeking reversal of the December 14 order finding him in indirect

civil contempt (case number 22-1927).

¶ 58   On January 17, 2023, petitioner filed a motion for entry of a new body attachment for

respondent outside of the courtroom due to the Sheriff’s Office being unable to arrest respondent

unless he was present in court or otherwise on court property. The order of adjudication and body

attachment was subsequently amended the following day. Respondent did not appear in court

despite being ordered to by the circuit court. Meanwhile, also on January 17, 2023, respondent

filed a motion to stay the circuit court’s orders during the pendency of his appeals. On January 19,

2023, the circuit court denied respondent’s motion for a stay and again found that respondent had

                                               - 30 -
No. 1-23-0618

willfully failed to comply with discovery requests and willfully failed to comply with or otherwise

violated the court’s orders, including orders to appear. Accordingly, the circuit court granted

petitioner’s request for sanctions and found respondent to be in default in the dissolution action as

a sanction for his conduct, and respondent was barred from testifying or presenting evidence at the

hearing. The default prove-up hearing was scheduled for February 22, 2023.

¶ 59   At the default prove-up hearing, respondent did not appear and respondent’s counsel was

not allowed to question petitioner as part of sanctions against respondent, over his objection that

it violated due process. Petitioner testified on her own behalf at the hearing. At the conclusion of

the hearing, the circuit court entered an order dissolving the marriage and awarding maintenance

and child support to petitioner. Petitioner was also awarded the marital residence at 2500 Windsor

Mall Drive, Unit 1A, which carried a joint mortgage, while respondent was awarded a residence

at 2300 Windsor Mall Drive, which he bought cash. With respect to vehicles, petitioner was

awarded the 2019 Toyota RAV 4, the 2013 Mini-Cooper for Maryana, the 2016 Artic Cat

Snowmobile, the 2003 Peterbilt Tractor, and the 2015 Silver Audi A8. Respondent was awarded

the 2007 Freightliner truck, Sprinter 2500, and a newer truck used for his business, as well as all

other vehicles in his name and those he transferred to Ukraine during the marriage. Respondent

was ordered to pay petitioner’s $70,000 credit card fees incurred during the proceedings to cover

her attorney fees and it could not be discharged in bankruptcy. The body attachment for the

previously entered contempt charges remained in force and effect.

¶ 60   On March 16, 2023, respondent filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the default

judgment for dissolution of marriage, contending that he was denied his constitutional due process

                                               - 31 -
No. 1-23-0618

rights because his counsel was not allowed to participate in the hearing and that he could not come

to court because he was afraid of being arrested.

¶ 61   The circuit court entered a written order on March 20, 2023, denying respondent’s motion

after a hearing. Respondent was not present at the hearing. The court found that respondent was

found in default on January 19, 2023, based on its ruling on petitioner’s motion to compel and for

Rule 219 sanctions, noting that it made specific findings on the record on January 18, 2023, that

respondent, on numerous occasions and after entry of several court orders, willfully failed to

comply with discovery and failed to disclose assets in the case that had been pending for over four

years. The court also found that the body attachment for respondent was still in force and effect

and noted that respondent repeatedly failed to purge his contempt and made no effort to do so since

January 19, 2023, and chose instead to pay his counsel to file an appeal of the allocation judgment,

a second appeal of the contempt orders, and to file the motion to vacate the default judgment. The

court further found that respondent failed to pay the mortgage and household expenses since

November 2022 as previously ordered. The court further found that respondent’s motion to vacate

the default judgment did not mention that respondent was defaulted and no attempt by respondent

or his counsel to vacate the default prior to the prove-up hearing on February 22, 2023. The court

found that respondent’s proffered reason for his failure to appear was not appropriate and because

he was defaulted, his attorney was properly barred form cross-examining petitioner at the prove-

up hearing. The court also entered the Uniform Order of Support and Income Withholding of

Support based on the default judgment as respondent did not respond or object.

                                               - 32 -
No. 1-23-0618

¶ 62   Respondent filed a timely notice of appeal on April 5, 2023, to appeal the default judgment

for dissolution of marriage (case number 23-0618, the current appeal), thus bringing his total

appeals to three.

¶ 63   Respondent’s first interlocutory appeal, case number 22-1776, filed on November 23,

2022, challenged the circuit court’s allocation of parenting time between the parties. That appeal

was decided on November 16, 2023, with this Court finding that the allocation of parenting time

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This court also concluded that we had no

jurisdiction to determine if it was an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to grant petitioner the

marital home as it was not a final order. See In re Marriage of Cholach, 2023 IL App (1st) 221776-

U.

¶ 64   Respondent’s second interlocutory appeal, case number 22-1927, filed on December 20,

2022, challenged the contempt determinations against him and the circuit court’s underlying orders

that led to his indirect civil contempt. That appeal was decided on February 15, 2024, and affirmed

the circuit court's contempt determinations as well as the underlying court orders. In re Marriage

of Cholach, 2024 IL App (1st) 221927-U.

¶ 65                                         ANALYSIS

¶ 66   On appeal, respondent contends that the default judgment entered against him constitutes

a violation of his constitutional due process rights. He argues that the circuit court erred in not

allowing his attorney to cross-examine petitioner and that the default was improperly entered

solely on petitioner’s testimony. Respondent further claims that the default judgment “shocks the

conscience.” Respondent does acknowledge that he was defaulted because of his failure to comply

with discovery.

                                                 - 33 -
No. 1-23-0618

¶ 67   The circuit court entered a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage on February 22, 2023,

and denied respondent’s petition to vacate the default and for rehearing on March 20, 2023. A

notice of appeal was timely filed on April 5, 2023. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant

to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303 governing appeals from final judgments. Ill. S. Ct.

R. 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); 303 (eff. July 1, 2007).

¶ 68   We begin by noting that respondent’s brief fails to acknowledge or discuss the fact that the

default judgment for dissolution and what occurred at the prove-up hearing, namely that his

counsel was not allowed to cross-examine petitioner, were the result of the circuit court’s

imposition of Rule 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002) sanctions against him for his conduct throughout the

proceedings.

¶ 69   Pursuant to Rule 219(c), the circuit court may impose sanctions against any party who

“unreasonably fails to comply” with the supreme court’s discovery rules or any order entered

pursuant to those rules. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002). That rule sets forth

a nonexclusive list of sanctions which a court may impose, where just, including that “the

offending party be debarred from filing any other pleading relating to any issue to which the refusal

or failure relates,” “the offending party be debarred from maintaining any particular claim,

counterclaim, third-party complaint, or defense relating to that issue,” and “a witness be barred

from testifying concerning that issue.” Id. Under Rule 219(c), the court may also enter a judgment

of default against the offending party, dismiss the offending party’s action with or without

prejudice, or strike any portion of the offending party's pleadings related to that issue. Id.

Additionally, a court “may impose upon the offending party or his or her attorney, or both, an

appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of

                                                - 34 -
No. 1-23-0618

reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct, including a reasonable attorney fee. Id.

Sanctions are used to “combat abuses of the discovery process and maintain the integrity of the

court system.” Locasto v. City of Chicago,. 2014 IL App (1st) 113576, ¶ 27.

¶ 70    We find our supreme court’s decision in Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp., 181 Ill. 2d

112 (1998) to be instructive on the issue of Rule 219(c) sanctions. The court held that, when

imposing sanctions, the court’s purpose is to coerce compliance with discovery rules and orders,

not to punish the dilatory party. Id. at 123. A sanction which results in a default judgment is a

drastic sanction to be invoked only in those cases where the party’s actions show a deliberate,

contumacious or unwarranted disregard of the court’s authority. Id. Such sanction should only be

employed as a last resort and after all the court’s other enforcement powers have failed to advance

the litigation. Id.

¶ 71    The decision to impose sanctions under Rule 219(c) is within the discretion of the trial

court, and we will not reverse that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. at 120. To

determine if the trial court abused its discretion, a reviewing court must look to the criteria upon

which the trial court relied in making its determination of an appropriate sanction. Id. at 123-24.

The factors a trial court is to use in determining what sanction, if any, to apply are: (1) the surprise

to the adverse party; (2) the prejudicial effect of the proffered testimony or evidence; (3) the nature

of the testimony or evidence; (4) the diligence of the adverse party in seeking discovery; (5) the

timeliness of the adverse party’s objection to the testimony or evidence; and (6) the good faith of

the party offering the testimony or evidence. Id. at 124. Of these factors, no single factor is

determinative. Id.

                                                 - 35 -
No. 1-23-0618

¶ 72    In the case at bar, we find no abuse of discretion by the circuit court in imposing Rule

219(c) sanctions. As noted above, over the course of the almost four years of litigation,

respondent’s behavior established a pattern of refusal to fully comply with discovery requests, a

refusal to abide by court orders, resulting in several contempt orders being entered against him,

which we note that he never attempted to purge. The record is replete with situations where, in lieu

of complying with discovery or court orders, respondent instead filed frivolous pleadings to stall

the proceedings. Additionally, the circuit court also found that respondent told petitioner that he

was going to financially ruin her and make her unable to pay her attorney fees by stalling the

litigation.

¶ 73    In reviewing the applicable factors, all of the factors weigh in petitioner’s favor. First, there

was no surprise to respondent and petitioner had consistently sought sanctions for respondent’s

failure to comply with discovery or abide by court orders to comply. The circuit court had

previously barred respondent from testifying at the allocation trial as a sanction for failing to

comply with discovery and failing to comply with court orders. However, respondent ultimately

complied with discovery, requested that the order barring his testimony be vacated, which the

circuit court granted. The record indicates that respondent never sought to vacate the default, which

he could have done by purging the contempt orders against him, which further support the circuit

court’s determination that respondent’s actions were willful and unreasonable.

¶ 74    The discovery evidence sought in discovery by petitioner would have provided a clearer

picture of respondent’s finances and financial situation, in crafting the marital settlement

agreement. Due to the default against respondent and the bar to his presentation of evidence, the

                                                 - 36 -
No. 1-23-0618

only evidence presented at the prove-up was petitioner’s testimony, which was consistent with

other filings and evidence before the court. As such, any prejudice to respondent was minimal.

¶ 75   The record established that petitioner consistently sought discovery materials from

respondent throughout the course of the proceedings, to no avail. The record does not reflect that

respondent objected to the sanction; he did not even appear at the prove-up hearing or the prior

court date. Rather, his counsel only objected to not being allowed to cross-examine petitioner at

the hearing, which the circuit court denied as part of the 219(c) sanctions. Finally, the record

consistently shows petitioner’s good faith in participating throughout the proceedings and

testifying at the prove-up hearing based on proffered documentation she was in possession of

(which was previously made part of the record) and based on her information and belief. It also

bears noting that, despite respondent’s consistent disregard of discovery requests and court orders

and otherwise egregious behavior throughout the proceedings, the circuit court gave him numerous

opportunities to purge the contempt before entering the default and other sanctions against him.

¶ 76   We conclude that, based on the circumstances presented in this case, the sanctions imposed

by the circuit court against respondent were not an abuse of discretion and we reject his theory on

appeal that the imposition of Rule 219(c) sanctions which also served to bar his attorney from

participating in the prove-up hearing was somehow a violation of his constitutional due process

rights. Rather, these were sanctions for respondent’s continued failure to comply with discovery

and flagrant disregard of court orders, which the circuit court was within its power to impose.

¶ 77                                     CONCLUSION

¶ 78   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

¶ 79   Affirmed.

                                              - 37 -