In re Marriage of Faletti, 2017 IL App (3d) 160323

Petition filed by Dominic J. Faletti, Jr., guardian for Dominic Sr., to dissolve marriage from Virginia Faletti; parties had lived apart and sought waiver of two‑year separation for Medicaid eligibility concerns.
Proceedings revealed Virginia’s cognitive decline; respondents’ counsel began guardianship proceedings for Virginia and repeatedly withheld consent to entry of a bifurcated dissolution until a guardian could decide.
Petitioner’s counsel pressed for a bifurcated judgment to permit Dominic to apply for Medicaid and alleged respondents had not disclosed significant settlement funds.
Although hearings were continued repeatedly for status and guardianship, a written bifurcated judgment was filed on January 23, 2015; record does not show respondents or appointed guardians consented or were present at entry.
Respondents moved to vacate, arguing the judgment was entered without Virginia’s or her guardians’ consent or proper notice; trial court denied the motion, finding attorneys had effectively agreed and blameable delay by Virginia’s children.
Appellate court reversed: held judgment was entered without consent and trial court abused its discretion; remanded with directions to vacate the bifurcated judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a bifurcated dissolution may be entered without express consent of the respondent/guardian when counsel did not object at prior hearings	Bohlen: attorneys for respondents did not object; entry was appropriate given prior representations and urgency (Medicaid)	Respondents: counsel expressly withheld consent and reserved decision to an appointed guardian; no guardian had consented or appeared	Court: Entry without consent or a judicial finding of "appropriate circumstances" was improper; judgment entered without consent — vacate and remand
Whether counsel’s statement that a future guardian "will agree" constitutes binding consent on behalf of the later‑appointed guardian	Petitioner: Sabuco’s statement that the guardian would agree amounted to consent on behalf of guardian	Respondents: such prospectively speaking remark cannot bind a future guardian; guardian must exercise statutory duties and decide consistent with incapacitée's wishes	Court: Sabuco’s prospective statement did not bind the guardian; guardian’s statutory role prevents treating that as consent

Mulcahey v. Vehon, 229 Ill. App. 454 (1923) (distinguishes passive non‑objection from active consent)
In re Marriage of Sutherland, 251 Ill. App. 3d 411 (1993) (standard of review for denial of motion to vacate civil judgment)