{
  "id": 2871666,
  "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF JILL A. WONDERLICK, Petitioner-Appellee, and JOHN F. WONDERLICK, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Wonderlick",
  "decision_date": "1994-03-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 2-92-1338",
  "first_page": "692",
  "last_page": "695",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 Ill. App. 3d 692"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3498176
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. App. 3d 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3638870
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "555"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/137/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 S. Ct. 2180",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 L. Ed. 2d 162",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 U.S. 996",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11778530,
        11778823,
        11778472,
        11778730,
        11778347,
        11778987,
        11778637,
        11778768,
        11779061,
        11778903,
        11778585,
        11778684
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/402/0996-03",
        "/us/402/0996-09",
        "/us/402/0996-02",
        "/us/402/0996-07",
        "/us/402/0996-01",
        "/us/402/0996-11",
        "/us/402/0996-05",
        "/us/402/0996-08",
        "/us/402/0996-12",
        "/us/402/0996-10",
        "/us/402/0996-04",
        "/us/402/0996-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill. 2d 30",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2905331
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "33"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/47/0030-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 3d 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8498033
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "56-57"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/194/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5469019
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "259-60"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/85/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 Ill. App. 3d 902",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5289834
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "911"
        },
        {
          "page": "912"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/216/0902-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 2d 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3152590
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "539"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/103/0536-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 4815,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.812,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.184765865984079e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3836461121864634
    },
    "sha256": "2536e1cb6ec0e352c523695db444599031930a50201b9bfe452ba3a9b5163f9d",
    "simhash": "1:e18bc3be5b2118ef",
    "word_count": 790
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:39.062040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re MARRIAGE OF JILL A. WONDERLICK, Petitioner-Appellee, and JOHN F. WONDERLICK, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE INGLIS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRespondent, 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.\nOn June 25, 1992, the trial court entered an order dissolving the parties\u2019 marriage. The order apportioned the marital property, awarded rehabilitative maintenance for petitioner, Jill A. Wonder-lick, and directed each party to pay his or her own attorney fees.\nOn 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\u2019s written order of October 2, 1992, denied respondent\u2019s 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\u2019s petition to terminate maintenance.\nOn 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,\u2019 dated October 5, 1992 [sic].\u201d\nWe must consider, sua sponte, whether we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. (Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Barth (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 536, 539; Lodolce v. Central Du Page Hospital (1991), 216 Ill. App. 3d 902, 911.) Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1) states (with exceptions not applicable here) that the notice of appeal \"must be filed *** within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from, or, if a timely post-trial motion directed against the judgment is filed, *** within 30 days after the entry of the order disposing of the last pending post-trial motion.\u201d (134 Ill. 2d R. 303(a)(1).) A party is entitled to a single post-judgment motion, and unauthorized repetitive post-judgment motions do not extend the time for appeal. Sears v. Sears (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 253, 259-60; Lodolce, 216 Ill. App. 3d at 912; B-G Associates, Inc. v. Giron (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 52, 56-57.\nRespondent\u2019s notice of appeal was untimely. To appeal from the judgment of dissolution, respondent had to file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the order denying the single post-judgment motion to which he was entitled. As the 30th day from the October 2, 1992, order was November 1, 1992, a Sunday, respondent\u2019s notice of appeal was due November 2, 1992. (See City of Chicago v. Greene (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 30, 33, cert. denied (1971), 402 U.S. 996, 29 L. Ed. 2d 162, 91 S. Ct. 2180.) The notice of appeal was not filed until November 6, 1992. Because the timely filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional (Ebert v. Dr. Scholl\u2019s Foot Comfort Shops, Inc. (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 550, 555), we have no choice but to dismiss this appeal.\nThe filing of the petition to terminate maintenance in no way alters our conclusion. Such a petition affects only those payments accruing after the filing of the motion and requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances. (750 ILCS 5/510(a) (West 1992).) The petition was not a post-trial motion as that term is used in Rule 303(a)(1). In fact, it was an attempt to invoke the court\u2019s extraordinary continuing jurisdiction to modify a final dissolution judgment on grounds not applicable to civil cases generally. (See In re Marriage of Stuart (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 314, 316 (section 610 of Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, allowing for modification of custody award upon changed circumstances, had no application to court\u2019s power to vacate or modify final judgment of dissolution upon motion filed within 30 days pursuant to section 2 \u2014 1203 of Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1203 (West 1992))).) Even if respondent\u2019s petition were somehow a \"post-trial motion\u201d under Rule 303(a)(1), it still did not extend the time to file the notice of appeal, as it would have been repetitive and untimely.\nAppeal dismissed.\nGEIGER and COLWELL, JJ, concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE INGLIS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alex M. Abate, of Barrick, Switzer, Long, Balsley & Van Evera, of Rockford, for appellant.",
      "Daniel T. Williams, Jr., and Ann M. Dittmar, both of McGreevy, Johnson & Williams, P.C., of Rockford, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF JILL A. WONDERLICK, Petitioner-Appellee, and JOHN F. WONDERLICK, Respondent-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 2 \u2014 92\u20141338\nOpinion filed March 30, 1994.\nAlex M. Abate, of Barrick, Switzer, Long, Balsley & Van Evera, of Rockford, for appellant.\nDaniel T. Williams, Jr., and Ann M. Dittmar, both of McGreevy, Johnson & Williams, P.C., of Rockford, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0692-01",
  "first_page_order": 710,
  "last_page_order": 713
}