In re Marriage of Stephens
2025 IL App (1st) 242519-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Myra Stephens (petitioner) filed for dissolution of marriage from Bradford Stephens (respondent); both parties had significant incomes/assets during marriage.
- Myra sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent Bradford from liquidating or encumbering marital assets, particularly retirement accounts and restricted stock units (RSUs).
- The circuit court granted the TRO and later, after only a summary hearing (no evidence/testimony taken), converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction.
- Bradford opposed, denying allegations of dissipation and arguing no irreparable harm or lack of legal remedy, especially given funds were used for legal and support expenses.
- Both parties, at various points, requested an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts.
- On appeal under Rule 307(a)(1), the appellate court reviewed the propriety of converting the TRO to a preliminary injunction without an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TRO could be converted to preliminary injunction without evidentiary hearing | Alleged dissipation of marital assets warranted injunctive relief now | Denied allegations, asserted damages are calculable, demanded evidentiary hearing | Preliminary injunction vacated, evidentiary hearing required |
| Need for injunctive relief based on dissipation claims | Immediate action needed to prevent irreparable harm | Actions justified/lawful, no irreparable harm | Factual disputes required evidentiary proceedings |
| Proper valuation and treatment of RSUs and withdrawals | RSUs are valuable marital assets being dissipated | RSUs overvalued, not readily marketable | Disputed facts on asset value require hearing |
| Adequacy of legal remedy to address alleged asset dissipation | No adequate remedy at law, irreparable harm threatened | Damages are monetarily calculable and compensable | No ruling on merits; required evidentiary hearing first |
Key Cases Cited
- Buzz Barton and Associates, Inc. v. Giannone, 108 Ill. 2d 373 (setting standard for preliminary injunctive relief)
- Delgado v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 481 (TRO is emergency relief to maintain status quo)
- In re T.M.H., 2019 IL App (2d) 190614 (evidentiary hearing required if facts are disputed for preliminary injunction)
- Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. v. City of Chicago, 117 Ill. App. 3d 353 (distinguishing requirements for TRO vs. preliminary injunction)
- Bullard v. Bullard, 66 Ill. App. 3d 132 (preliminary injunction maintains status quo pending outcome)