2023 IL App (1st) 221576-U
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background:
- Angela Botero filed for dissolution in June 2020 and obtained an ex parte emergency order of protection on August 12, 2020; after a September 2, 2020 hearing the court entered a two‑year plenary order prohibiting Jose Roque from contacting or abusing her.
- Angela alleged multiple prior incidents of physical and sexual violence, property damage, and controlling behavior; Jose denied the abuse and denied recent contact after the plenary order.
- In 2021 the court ordered Angela to vacate the marital residence and later held her in contempt for misappropriating funds; Jose also obtained an agreed order restricting Angela from possessing or disposing of his property.
- Angela moved in August 2022 to extend the plenary order (expiring Sept. 2, 2022), asserting continued fear, risk from Jose’s alleged access to weapons, and that her address had been disclosed to him.
- At the contested September 23, 2022 hearing Angela admitted Jose had not contacted her since 2020 and produced only uncorroborated allegations (anonymous calls, a bullet, water being turned off); the trial court nonetheless extended the plenary order two more years, citing prior findings of abuse and Richardson v. Booker.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the extension was against the manifest weight of the evidence because Angela failed to show good cause and the trial court improperly relied on past findings from the original order in a contested extension.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner showed "good cause" to extend a plenary order under section 220(e) | Botero: continued fear, risk from Jose’s weapons, counsel disclosed her address, risk of intimidation | Roque: mere passage of time and prior order compliance do not show good cause; he had no contact since 2020 | Reversed — no good cause; extension against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether findings in the original plenary order alone can support a contested extension | Botero: prior findings of abuse demonstrate ongoing risk | Roque: statute and case law require current evidence in contested extensions, not reliance on prior findings | Reversed — trial court erred to rely on past findings for contested extension |
| Whether speculative or uncorroborated post‑order incidents suffice | Botero: cited anonymous calls, a bullet left, water turned off, and fear of threats | Roque: incidents were uncorroborated, no police reports, and he denied contact/weapons | Reversed — speculative/unsubstantiated allegations insufficient to meet burden |
| Whether Richardson v. Booker supported the extension | Trial court: relied on Richardson to consider past findings of abuse | Roque: Richardson addressed initial plenary determinations and is inapposite to contested extensions | Reversed — Richardson was misapplied; it did not justify extending a contested plenary order |
Key Cases Cited
- Selective Insurance Co. v. Urbina, 371 Ill. App. 3d 27 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (appellate court may decide merits without appellee brief when record/simple error allows)
- People v. Uridales, 225 Ill. 2d 354 (Ill. 2007) (defines ‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’ standard used in civil proceedings)