[1]     

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT

, [4]     

March 30, 1994

, [10]    

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE INGLIS

, [5]     In re MARRIAGE OF JILL A. WONDERLICK, Petitioner-Appellee, [6]     and JOHN F. WONDERLICK, Respondent-Appellant. " />

Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

03/30/94 In Re Marriage of Jill a. Wonderlick, Petitioner-Appellee,

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT

No. 2-92-1338

631 N.E.2d 891, 259 Ill. App. 3d 692, 197 Ill. Dec. 669, 1994.IL.0000459 <http://www.versuslaw.com>

March 30, 1994

[5]    

In re MARRIAGE OF JILL A. WONDERLICK, Petitioner-Appellee,

[6]    

and JOHN F. WONDERLICK, Respondent-Appellant.

[7]    

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County. No. 90-D-456. Honorable Richard W. Vidal, Judge, Presiding.

[8]    

As Amended April 4, 1994.

[9]    

APPELLATE PANEL: INGLIS, GEIGER, COLWELL

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE INGLIS

Respondent, John F. Wonderlick, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Jill A. Wonderlick. Respondent raises several substantive challenges to the judgment. We lack jurisdiction, however, to consider these arguments. Thus, we dismiss the appeal.

On June 25, 1992, the trial court entered an order dissolving the parties' marriage. The order apportioned the marital property, awarded rehabilitative maintenance for petitioner, Jill A. Wonderlick, and directed each party to pay his or her own attorney fees.

On July 23, 1992, respondent moved for reconsideration of the judgment. On October 2, 1992, before the trial court ruled on this motion, respondent asked leave to file a petition to terminate maintenance. The trial court's written order of October 2, 1992, denied respondent's motion to reconsider. The order also granted respondent leave to file his petition to terminate maintenance and gave petitioner 14 days to file her answer. Respondent filed his petition that same day. The cause was continued for status until November 5, 1992, when both parties and their counsel failed to appear in court. The record contains nothing further about respondent's petition to terminate maintenance.

On November 6, 1992, 35 days after the order denying his motion to reconsider, respondent filed his notice of appeal, which stated that he was appealing the June 25, 1992, judgment of dissolution and the "'Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration,' dated October 5, 1992 [sic]."

We must consider, sua sponte, whether we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth (1984)


02 VersusLaw, Inc.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.