Court Opinion

ID: 9522811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:32:29.110147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:58.980878
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE UNVERZAGT, dissenting: The majority decision, after much circumnavigation of the facts, fails to accurately state the position of the parties in the trial court on the question of maintenance. The majority labors mightily but unconvincingly to create what does not exist in this record. The plaintiff-appellant’s position in the trial court was that maintenance was not requested. Plaintiff’s trial counsel, who is also her appellate counsel, closed his written argument to the trial court with this paragraph: “Maintenance is not requested. Each party should pay his or her attorney’s fees, costs, C.P.A. costs and divide evenly the cost of the evidence depositions.” The trial judge’s memorandum opinion stated that: “No maintenance has been requested by the Petitioner, so none is awarded.” He was correct. No proofs were adduced on the subject. It cannot be awarded. It is well settled that the theory upon which a case is tried in the lower court may not be changed on appeal, and that an issue not presented to or considered by the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on review. (Kravis v. Smith Marine, Inc. (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 141, 147.) It is required that the points argued on appeal be commensurate with the issues presented at trial. (In re Estate of Leichtenberg (1956), 7 Ill. 2d 545, 548-49.) Where a proposition is not urged or argued in the trial court, it will not be considered on review, for a party cannot argue one thing in the trial court and another to the appellate court. (Westlake v. Moffitt (1975), 30 Ill. App. 3d 597.) Dissolution proceedings are not sui generis, and these rules even apply to such proceedings. (Bergan v. Bergan (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 740.) Our court has long given validity to these necessary rulings. Cornell v. County of DuPage (1977), 58 Ill. App. 3d 230; First National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Rockford (1977), 47 Ill. App. 3d 131. As Justice Reinhard recently pointed out, “[a party] may not ask the court to proceed in a given manner and then assign as error in a court of review the ruling or action which he procured.” People v. Miller (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 495, 501. Furthermore, it is firmly established that this court has jurisdiction only over those matters which are raised in the notice of appeal. (Harvey v. Carponelli (1983), 117 Ill. App. 3d 448.) Maintenance was not specifically raised in the notice of appeal, and we should not consider the issue. In the case at hand, no reversal and remand for a determination of maintenance is warranted. I therefore dissent.